ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Quantifying the AI readiness gap: An international, multidisciplinary assessment of artificial intelligence literacy in the radiation oncology community.
Article in Clinical and translational 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into imaging-intensive fields like radiation oncology (RO) is transforming the clinical workforce from manual operators to supervisory validators, yet the baseline competencies required for safe oversight remain undefined. Here we present the first consensus-built, validated international knowledge assessment of AI literacy to quantify the RO knowledge profile. Methods: A multidisciplinary, international panel from clinical practice, academia, and industry developed a 22-item knowledge assessment mapped to core AI-in-radiotherapy concepts. Items underwent a three-round consensus process with blinded initial voting, achieving > 80% panel agreement. The instrument was deployed worldwide via a multilingual web application, and demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90) and strong discrimination (mean: 0.63). Results: 760 individuals engaged with the assessment; 528 completed all items. Significant role-specific disparities emerged: Medical Physicists demonstrated higher scores than Radiation Oncologists and Radiation Therapists (p < 0.001). However, required competencies vary by role. While the workforce exhibited strong intuition regarding data-centric risks such as bias and data drift, widespread deficits were identified in fundamental model mechanics and interpretation of prediction uncertainty. This differential performance hinders the shared vocabulary necessary to describe model failures or distinguish between simpler models and advanced foundational architectures capable of adapting to complex clinical data, both labelled "AI". Our analysis also challenges traditional educational paradigms: targeted workshops proved as effective as formal degrees, and knowledge score did not correlate with career stage. Conclusions: These results establish a global benchmark for AI readiness. While clinical staff may not require AI development expertise, our findings demonstrate significant value in targeted training to build shared AI vocabulary, ensuring clinical adoption does not outpace safe oversight.
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.