ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Interobserver Study on HDR Prostate-Human-Selected Versus AI-Selected Plans.
Article in Advances 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The development of the multicriteria optimization algorithm in high-dose-rate brachytherapy brings a shift in the objective. Instead of generating an acceptable plan, the objective is to choose the best plans out of thousands. To tackle this new objective, an artificial intelligence (AI) approach was developed. The AI approach of selecting a plan from the multicriteria optimization pool needs to be validated in a retrospective study. Methods and Materials: The AI approach uses new criteria, named spatial criteria, on top of the more commonly used dose-volume histogram criteria. With these criteria, AI models can be tuned to one's liking. In this study, 2 different sets of criteria are used to train models, which are then used on 20 previously treated cases. The plans chosen by the AI are evaluated in addition to the clinically selected plan in a blind study. A 5-point Likert scale is used to evaluate each plan with 4 radiation oncologists (RO) and 2 medical physicists. Results: No statistical difference is observed between the AI approach and the clinical plans (for the ROs); statistical differences are observed for the medical physicists. The AI-selected plans are preferred or equivalent more than half of the time by the ROs. The AI approach is fast (on average, 12 seconds) to rank the plan of a single plan pool. Conclusions: The study confirms our hypothesis that the plans chosen by AI can be at least as good as the plans chosen by the medical staff. The use of AI models allows for fast selection of plans.
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.