ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
AI-driven troubleshooting for TrueBeam systems: Development and testing of a GPT-4.1 Chatbot.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Troubleshooting linear accelerator faults during patient care is time-critical and cognitively demanding. Access to relevant historical information is often slow and experience-dependent. To streamline information retrieval and support decision-making, a TrueBeam troubleshooting chatbot powered by a large language model (LLM) was developed and tested. Methods: Troubleshooting records from five TrueBeam linacs over eight years were extracted from an in-house database. After removing non-UTF-8 characters and normalizing formatting, each issue was stored as a structured text file for retrieval. Files were indexed in a GPT-4.1-based environment, with parameters (e.g., temperature, retrieved chunks) iteratively tuned. Performance was evaluated using standardized questions across domains including recall, real-time troubleshooting, aggregation, safety, and temporal filtering. Four physicists scored responses using a predefined rubric. Results: A total of 1394 logs (5.4 MB) were indexed, with indexing completed in 16 min. Mean response time was 7.5 ± 2.5 s. The chatbot performed well in retrieving prior events, summarizing institutional experience, and recognizing when information was unavailable. Performance was largely insensitive to temperature and chunk number, except under severely limited retrieval. Weaknesses included occasional procedural misordering, unclear responsibility between physicists and service personnel, verbosity, and inconsistent temporal filtering. Conclusion: A GPT-4.1-based RAG chatbot can rapidly surface relevant institutional knowledge for linac troubleshooting and may reduce cognitive burden during machine faults. However, important safety and workflow risks remain. Such systems should function as decision-support tools and require explicit guardrails, role definition, and formal risk evaluation prior to broad clinical deployment.
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.