MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021673644 · doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2020.03.015

Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy

2020· review· en· W3021673644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyComputer scienceQuality assuranceArtificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceMedical physicsArtificial neural networkField (mathematics)MedicineRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already been implemented widely in the medical field in the recent years. This paper first reviews the background of AI and radiotherapy. Then it explores the basic concepts of different AI algorithms and machine learning methods, such as neural networks, that are available to us today and how they are being implemented in radiotherapy and diagnostic processes, such as medical imaging, treatment planning, patient simulation, quality assurance and radiation dose delivery. It also explores the ongoing research on AI methods that are to be implemented in radiotherapy in the future. The review shows very promising progress and future for AI to be widely used in various areas of radiotherapy. However, basing on various concerns such as availability and security of using big data, and further work on polishing and testing AI algorithms, it is found that we may not ready to use AI primarily in radiotherapy at the moment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it