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

Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy

2020· review· en· W3021673644 on OpenAlexaff
Sarkar Siddique, James C. L. Chow

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReports of Practical Oncology & RadiotherapySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207