ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Developing a web-based dashboard for adaptive radiotherapy workflows.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdaptive radiotherapy (ART) is limited by the absence of reliable thresholds to trigger necessary plan adaptation. This work develops and verifies a web-based, database-backed dashboard that unifies geometric, dosimetric, and radiobiological metrics to support day-to-day ART decisions.
methodsTen retrospectively selected patients were analyzed (Head and Neck (H&N), n = 5, 30-35 fx; prostate MR-linac, n = 5, 5 fx). Daily dose was recalculated on CBCT-derived pseudo-CTs (pCT) (H&N) or on daily MR images (prostate). A Python/Dash dashboard with a PostgreSQL backend takes in RTStruct/RTDose, then performs structure name harmonization, computes per-fraction DVHs, and derives five radar-chart metrics: organ central point displacement, interfraction Dice (reported as 1-Dice), intrafraction Dice (OAR-PTV overlap vs reference), objective score (deviation from plan objectives), and a radiobiology score using TCP/NTCP to calculate PI, PB, and P+. Residuals, defined as the difference between the reference metric (MIM) and the corresponding dashboard calculated value (MIM-Dashboard), were calculated to assess agreement. Calculations were verified against MIM Maestro using residual plots, paired t-tests (α = 0.05), and effect sizes.
resultsCentral point residuals were negligible (mean < 0.05 mm on all axes; max 0.45 mm). Interfraction Dice mean absolute difference was 0.08 (max 0.83); intrafraction Dice differences were smaller (overall mean residual -0.01). For score card dose endpoints, the largest mean difference was at D99.9% (1.31 Gy; 2.08%-below TG-114's 5% action level). Percent-volume endpoints showed small residuals (overall mean +0.32%); absolute-volume endpoints were near zero (overall mean +0.05 cm
conclusionsThe dashboard reproduces geometric, DVH, objective, and radiobiology metrics within acceptable limits relative to MIM, providing a credible foundation for ART decision support. Limitations include the projected DVH being a visualization (not dose accumulation) and radiobiology sensitivity to DVH sampling in steep gradients.
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.