ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
A deep learning approach for predicting linear accelerator output settings in automated radiotherapy planning of oligometastatic cancer.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The monitor units (MU) per control point (CP) control the necessary fine-tuned ablative dose for hypofractionated radiotherapy of oligometastatic cancer. We aimed to introduce strategies maximising the sample size to accurately predict the MU per CP with artificial intelligence (AI). Materials and methods: The 40/68/88 treatment plans of consecutive patients treated between 01/2019 and 06/2024 at our institution for metastatic cancer to the liver/bone/lung were included. Two approaches were considered to maximise the sample size. In one approach, the samples of each anatomical site were extensively augmented to predict the MU per CP from the dose distribution per CP, providing the MU per beam and meterset weight per CP. In the other approach, all samples from all anatomical sites were combined for training. The number of achieved clinical goals based on dose-volume calculation metrics in AI radiotherapy plans (AI-RTPlan) was compared with the number of achieved clinical goals in the clinical plans. Results: The mean absolute percentage error between predicted and clinical MU per beam/meterset weight per CP was less than 6.2%. All AI-RTPlans were generated in less than 5 s. At least 90%/5% of patients had the same, or more, achieved clinical goals with AI-RTPlans. Target coverage and dose to organs at risk metrics were within ± 2% and ± 2.3 Gy of the clinical value in all patients, respectively. Conclusions: Augmenting data extensively and combining anatomical sites were equivalent and proficient strategies to predict machine settings for radiotherapy planning of oligometastatic cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.