Radiation therapists’ perspectives on artificial intelligence: Insights from a single institution on Improving effectiveness and educational supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".