ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
An AI-assisted, failure mode-based toolkit for proactive risk management in radiotherapy: A feasibility study.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Proactive risk management is essential for safe radiotherapy (RT), but formal approaches such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can be difficult to implement routinely because of time and resource constraints. We developed i-SART (Intelligent Safety Assistant for Radiotherapy), an AI-assisted, failure mode-based toolkit to support proactive risk management and safety activities in RT, and conducted a feasibility evaluation. Materials and methods: i-SART is a web-based prototype combining a harmonised failure mode (FM) database derived from 10 FMEA studies, an online portal for FM submissions and a conversational assistant (chatbot) configured to provide structured FM analyses, mitigation suggestions and illustrative incident examples. Internal testing assessed response structure, accuracy and hallucinations. An online survey of RT professionals explored usability and perceived value. Results: The database contained 419 FMs spanning the RT workflow. The assistant produced structured, clinically plausible mitigation suggestions but was only partially accurate, with hallucinations mainly affecting guideline references and incident details. Fifty-one professionals from 11 countries completed a survey, giving median ratings of 4/5 across domains, including ease of use, support for proactive risk management, and perceived error-reduction potential. Conclusion: This feasibility study shows that a failure mode-based toolkit combining a curated database, submission portal, and conversational assistant is technically achievable and was rated favourably by early users for supporting risk management activities. Further work should expand the database, strengthen safeguards against hallucinations, and evaluate effects on risk assessment processes and patient safety.
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.