ArticleMedical physics2026
Local large language model-guided optimization for prostate radiotherapy planning.
Article in 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy planning is time-intensive, iterative, and operator-dependent. Locally deployed large language-model agents may support planning automation while avoiding transmission of patient data to external model providers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop and evaluate SAGE, a locally deployed LLM agent for autonomous VMAT optimization-priority tuning, and to investigate the impact of model size (8B vs. 70B) and intra-case memory implemented through retrieval augmentation.
methodsThe SAGE agent (Llama 3.1 8B/70B) was interfaced with a clinical TPS to tune optimization priority values for 17 retrospective prostate cancer patients (60 Gy/20fx). All SAGE priority values were initialized to 1, while the study-defined optimization objective set and beam geometry were held fixed. We compared four agent variants (8B, 70B, 8B-RAG, 70B-RAG) to the clinical plan using paired Wilcoxon tests with FDR control.
resultsNo statistically significant difference in target (PTV V58.5 Gy) coverage was observed between SAGE variants and clinical plans. The 70B-RAG agent significantly improved penile bulb sparing (V22Gy) over clinical plans (p = 0.014). Enabling intra-case memory provided a statistically significant improvement in penile bulb sparing, while no significant effect was observed from model size alone. While clinical plans were statistically better for some OARs, all SAGE 70B-RAG plans remained clinically acceptable. The most complex version of SAGE (70B-RAG) completed ten autonomous iterations in a median compute time of 45 min (IQR: 34-51). For reference, the clinical planning workflow turnaround (ARIA-recorded task duration) median time was 2700 min (IQR: 2040-3060).
conclusionsThis proof-of-concept study demonstrates that a local LLM agent can autonomously tune optimization priority values to generate clinically acceptable prostate VMAT plans within a fixed, study-defined objective space. Intra-case memory produced a statistically significant, endpoint-specific improvement (penile bulb V22Gy). These findings suggest that smaller, efficient models may be viable for constrained treatment-planning optimization tasks.
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.