ReviewFrontiers in nuclear medicine2026
Artificial intelligence across oncologic theranostics: evidence for patient stratification, dosimetry, and adaptive radiopharmaceutical therapy.
Review in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been studied across radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT); however, evidence for treatment-changing use remains limited. We conducted a structured narrative review with descriptive mapping of learned models for patient stratification, segmentation, tumor-burden quantification, quantitative preprocessing, dosimetry, toxicity prediction, response assessment, and radiation-safety/logistics support. The mapped set contained 73 direct full journal reports and eight direct conference abstracts, with one additional meeting abstract retained as contextual evidence. Among the full reports, 17 were PSMA-related, 16 SSTR/PRRT, 15 radioiodine, 14 ⁹⁰Y radioembolization, and 11 cross-platform or emerging-target reports; 16 addressed segmentation or quantification, 32 selection, response, prognosis, toxicity, or safety/logistics, and 25 registration, preprocessing, or dosimetry. Fifty-one reports were retrospective, one was an explicitly prospective clinical/technical evaluation, nine were technical, synthetic, or phantom evaluations, and temporal design was unclear or conflicting in 12. Seven reported an external-type held-out evaluation, including four that clearly held out an institution; one reported explicit calibration, one propagated task-level uncertainty, and none evaluated a prospective AI-guided treatment policy. The mapped evidence most directly supports human-reviewed measurement and workflow assistance. An eight-domain RPT evidence-to-decision synthesis organizes quantitative fidelity, reference standards, validation, endpoints, biological linkage, oversight, uncertainty and quality assurance, and decision impact; it is not a validated score or adoption standard.
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.