MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414816662 · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111167

Building an appraisal framework for radiotherapy innovations in a value-based context: The ESTRO-Value-based radiation oncology categorisation system

2025· article· en· W4414816662 on OpenAlexaff
Miet Vandemaele, Pierre Blanchard, Josep M. Borràs, Michelle Leech, Marianne Aznar, A. Aggarwal, Yolande Lievens

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersInstitut Gustave-RoussyUniversiteit GentElektaEuropean SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology
KeywordsAuthorizationRadiation oncologyRadiation therapyCritical appraisal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: There is no consistent appraisal strategy for radiotherapy innovations supporting their clinical implementation or regulatory decision-making, thus hampering access to high-value care. This study presents the development of a categorisation system as a first step towards a value-based appraisal framework for radiotherapy innovations within the ESTRO Value-Based Radiation Oncology (VBRO) project. METHODS: A mixed-method development process in four phases integrated qualitative and quantitative data in multiple rounds of revision, improvement and validation; and was supported by multidisciplinary stakeholders representing the European radiation oncology community. RESULTS: Four distinct categories of radiotherapy interventions are defined: Drug-centred, Radiation-centred, Radiation-enabling and Operational radiation interventions. Innovations are categorised based on their primary aim, focussing on either patient-level or organisational level; their technological characteristics; and their radiotherapy-specific characteristics such as therapeutic ratio, biological or dosimetric properties or radiotherapy-drug combinations. To support categorisation choices, a sequence of decision-making questions was arranged in a decision algorithm and presented as a decision tree. The categories and categorisation algorithm were validated using qualitative and quantitative methods by representative stakeholders of the European radiation oncology community, by a bibliometrical data analysis, and finally by the VBRO steering committee. CONCLUSION: A correct definition of the different radiotherapy categories is essential to study their interrelation with optimum study design, outcomes, and magnitude of benefit, in view of optimising evidence generation and tailored appraisals. This categorisation system forms the basis to create a value-based appraisal framework within the ESTRO-VBRO project, aimed to support implementation and authorisation regulations for each category of radiotherapy innovation.

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)0.233
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2330.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0260.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0170.017
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.421
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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiotherapy and OncologySame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207