MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406074673 · doi:10.1016/j.tipsro.2025.100300

Radiation therapists’ perspectives on artificial intelligence: Insights from a single institution on Improving effectiveness and educational supports

2025· article· en· W4406074673 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Marr, Y. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionRadiation TherapistPsychologyMedical educationMedicineSurgeryRadiation therapySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) technology has played an evolving role in radiation science, influencing the clinical practice of radiation therapists. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, attitude, clinical applications, and learning needs from the perspective of radiation therapists. Materials and Methods: This study used a cross-sectional online survey with a population of radiation therapists from a single institution. The survey was developed iteratively and was based on past literature. The questions were constructed to measure perception using four themes: knowledge of AI, perceived utilization, job impact, clinical applications, learning needs, and educational support. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics according to the key themes. Results: Between 22nd December 2023 and 17th January 2024, 74 radiation therapists completed the survey. The majority (55.4 %) were 44 years or older (Baby Boomers and Generation X). Additionally, 37.8 % rated their knowledge of AI as none or limited, but 93.2 % expressed interest in learning more about AI. Many (79.7 %) perceived AI not to be fully used in radiation therapy but has increased its effectiveness in image registration, reconstruction, and contouring. With the increasing use of AI in healthcare, 96.0 % feel that AI may affect their role, and 82.4 % believe it may impact their job satisfaction. Educational supports indicated to be the most advantageous for their job were online modules (36.5 %) and in-person workshops (35.1 %). Conclusion: Exploring the perspectives of radiation therapists has shown a strong interest in learning about AI and its role in radiation therapy. This information can help in understanding how to develop tailored strategies to mitigate potential barriers, leading to the successful implementation of AI in clinical radiation therapy practice.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation OncologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207