ReviewCardio-oncology (London, England)2026
A systematic review of artificial intelligence in radiotherapy associated cardiovascular toxicity.
Review in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular toxicity (CVT) is a major concern after radiotherapy (RT), contributing to morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve risk prediction and RT planning; however, its role in RT-associated CVT remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically evaluate AI applications and study quality in this field.
methodsA PRISMA-guided systematic review of PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through October 1, 2025. Eligible studies included original human research in English applying AI to CVT or imaging in cancer populations receiving RT. Predictive and imaging studies were evaluated using TRIPOD + AI/PROBAST and CLAIM/QUADAS-2, respectively. Exploratory meta-analysis of performance metrics was conducted where feasible.
resultsSixty-five studies were included, comprising AI prediction models (n = 31, 48%) and cardiovascular imaging applications (n = 34, 52%). Deep learning was the most common approach (45/65, 69%) and demonstrated the highest predictive performance (median AUC = 0.82; median sensitivity = 0.83). Calibration assessment (3/31, 10%) and external validation (6/31, 19%) were limited. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall predictive model accuracy of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.87). Imaging models performed well for larger cardiac structures (overall median DSC = 0.85, range: 0.76-0.94), while coronary artery segmentation remained challenging. Average TRIPOD + AI and CLAIM adherence were 79% and 71%, respectively. Most predictive (97%) and imaging (82%) studies were rated at high risk-of-bias.
conclusionAI shows promise for RT-associated CVT prediction and imaging but is underdeveloped for routine clinical implementation. Heterogeneity, limited validation, and methodological limitations highlight the need for standardized endpoints, external validation, and prospective clinical evaluation.
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.