Halperin, E. C., Wazer, D. E., Blitzblau, R. C., Esiashvili, N. & Baumann, B. Perez, Brady, Halperin, and Wazer’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology 8th edn (Wolters Kluwer, 2025).
Huynh, E. et al. Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 17, 771–781 (2020).
Google Scholar
Landry, G., Kurz, C. & Traverso, A. The role of artificial intelligence in radiotherapy clinical practice. BJR Open. 5, 20230030 (2023).
Google Scholar
Li, G., Wu, X. & Ma, X. Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy. Semin. Cancer Biol. 86, 160–171 (2022).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I. & Murphy, M. J. Machine and Deep Learning in Oncology, Medical Physics and Radiology (Springer, 2022).
Willoughby, T. R., Starkschall, G., Janjan, N. A. & Rosen, I. I. Evaluation and scoring of radiotherapy treatment plans using an artificial neural network. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 34, 923–930 (1996).
Google Scholar
Rowbottom, C. G., Webb, S. & Oldham, M. Beam-orientation customization using an artificial neural network. Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 2251–2262 (1999).
Google Scholar
Wells, D. M. & Niederer, J. A medical expert system approach using artificial neural networks for standardized treatment planning. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 41, 173–182 (1998).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I. et al. Multivariable modeling of radiotherapy outcomes, including dose–volume and clinical factors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 64, 1275–1286 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.022 (2006).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I., Bradley, J. D., Lindsay, P. E., Hope, A. J. & Deasy, J. O. Predicting radiotherapy outcomes using statistical learning techniques. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, S9–S30 (2009).
Google Scholar
Gulliford, S. L., Webb, S., Rowbottom, C. G., Corne, D. W. & Dearnaley, D. P. Use of artificial neural networks to predict biological outcomes for patients receiving radical radiotherapy of the prostate. Radiother. Oncol. 71, 3–12 (2004).
Google Scholar
Munley, M. T. et al. A neural network to predict symptomatic lung injury. Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 2241–2249 (1999).
Google Scholar
Su, M. et al. An artificial neural network for predicting the incidence of radiation pneumonitis. Med. Phys. 32, 318–325 (2005).
Google Scholar
Ibragimov, B. & Xing, L. Segmentation of organs-at-risks in head and neck CT images using convolutional neural networks. Med. Phys. 44, 547–557 (2017).
Google Scholar
Nikolov, S. et al. Clinically applicable segmentation of head and heck anatomy for radiotherapy: deep learning algorithm development and validation study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e26151 https://doi.org/10.2196/26151 (2021).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, D. et al. A feasibility study for predicting optimal radiation therapy dose distributions of prostate cancer patients from patient anatomy using deep learning. Sci. Rep. 9, 1076 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37741-x (2019).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, D. et al. 3D radiotherapy dose prediction on head and neck cancer patients with a hierarchically densely connected U-net deep learning architecture. Phys. Med. Biol. 64, 065020 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab039b (2019).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, D. et al. Three-dimensional radiotherapy dose prediction on head and neck cancer patients with a hierarchically densely connected U-net deep learning architecture. Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab039b (2018).
Shen, C. et al. Intelligent inverse treatment planning via deep reinforcement learning, a proof-of-principle study in high dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Phys. Med. Biol. 64, 115013 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab18bf (2019).
Google Scholar
Avanzo, M. et al. Machine and deep learning methods for radiomics. Med. Phys. 47, e185–e202 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13678 (2020).
Google Scholar
Coates, J. T. T., Pirovano, G. & El Naqa, I. Radiomic and radiogenomic modeling for radiotherapy: strategies, pitfalls, and challenges. J. Med. Imaging 8, 031902 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tseng, H. H., Luo, Y., Ten Haken, R. K. & El Naqa, I. The role of machine learning in knowledge-based response-adapted radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 8, 266 (2018).
Google Scholar
Tarhini, A. A., Dave, P. & El Naqa, I. General artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer: the rise of foundation models. BJR Artif Intell. 2, ubaf015 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjrai/ubaf015 (2025).
Google Scholar
Qi, X. S. et al. Generative AI, foundation models and large language models in radiation therapy physics: clinical applications, challenges, and future directions. Med. Phys. 53, e70616 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.70616 (2026).
Google Scholar
Deist, T. M. et al. Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo)radiotherapy: an empirical comparison of classifiers. Med. Phys. 45, 3449–3459 (2018).
Google Scholar
Duke, K. & Papanikolaou, N. Artificial intelligence in radiation therapy: from imaging to delivery—a comprehensive review. BJR Artif. Intell. 2, ubaf012 (2025).
Google Scholar
The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health, Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins (National Academy of Sciences, 2024).
Zhang, N. Digital Twins and Intelligence: A Symbiotic Framework. PhD thesis, Univ. Birmingham (2023).
Gu, Z., Liu, F., Chen, J., Yin, C. & Zhang, P. A proactive agent collaborative framework for zero-shot multimodal medical reasoning. Adv. Intell. Syst. 7, 2400840 (2025).
Google Scholar
Srinivasu, P. N., Aruna Kumari, G. L., Ahmed, S. & Alhumam, A. Exploring agentic AI in healthcare: a study on its working mechanism. Front. Med. 12, 1753443 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wang, Q. et al. A feasibility study of automating radiotherapy planning with large language model agents. Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/adbff1 (2025).
Google Scholar
Hassoon, A. et al. Randomized trial of two artificial intelligence coaching interventions to increase physical activity in cancer survivors. NPJ Digit. Med. 4, 168 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A. et al. Predictive digital twin for optimizing patient-specific radiotherapy regimens under uncertainty in high-grade gliomas. Front. Artif. Intell. 6, 1222612 (2023).
Google Scholar
Giansanti, D. & Morelli, S. Exploring the potential of digital twins in cancer treatment: a narrative review of reviews. J. Clin. Med. 14, 3574 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chang, C. W. et al. Exploration of an adaptive proton therapy strategy using CBCT with the concept of digital twins. Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ada684 (2025).
Google Scholar
Katsoulakis, E. et al. Digital twins for health: a scoping review. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 77 (2024).
Google Scholar
Laubenbacher, R., Mehrad, B., Shmulevich, I. & Trayanova, N. Digital twins in medicine. Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 184–191 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mackay, K., Bernstein, D., Glocker, B., Kamnitsas, K. & Taylor, A. A review of the metrics used to assess auto-contouring systems in radiotherapy. Clin. Oncol. 35, 354–369 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.016 (2023).
Google Scholar
Han, Z. et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted delineation for postoperative radiotherapy in patients with lung cancer: a prospective, multi-center, cohort study. Front. Oncol. 14, 1388297 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1388297 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rasmussen, M. E. et al. Potential of E-learning interventions and artificial intelligence-assisted contouring skills in radiotherapy: the ELAISA study. JCO Glob. Oncol. 10, e2400173 https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00173 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rhee, D. J. et al. Automated radiation treatment planning for cervical cancer. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 30, 340–347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2020.05.006 (2020).
Google Scholar
Asher, G. L. et al. Dosimetric evaluations using cycle-consistent generative adversarial network synthetic CT for MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy. Front. Oncol. 15, 1672778 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1672778 (2025).
Google Scholar
Truhn, D., Eckardt, J. N., Ferber, D. & Kather, J. N. Large language models and multimodal foundation models for precision oncology. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 8, 72 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-024-00573-2 (2024).
Google Scholar
Jensen, J. & Deng, J. Digital twins for radiation oncology. In Companion Proc. of the ACM Web Conf. 2023, 989–993 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023).
Mastroleo, F. et al. Translational barriers to digital twins in radiation oncology. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 40, 101024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2026.101024 (2026).
Google Scholar
Thangaraj, P. M., Benson, S. H., Oikonomou, E. K., Asselbergs, F. W. & Khera, R. Cardiovascular care with digital twin technology in the era of generative artificial intelligence. Eur. Heart J. 45, 4808–4821 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae619 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rahmim, A. et al. Theranostic digital twins for personalized radiopharmaceutical therapies: reimagining theranostics via computational nuclear oncology. Front. Oncol. 12, 1062592 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1062592 (2022).
Google Scholar
Strigari, L. et al. Computational nuclear oncology toward precision radiopharmaceutical therapies: ethical, regulatory, and socioeconomic dimensions of theranostic digital twins. J. Nucl. Med. 66, 748–756 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268186 (2025).
Google Scholar
McNaughton, J. et al. Machine learning for medical image translation: a systematic review. Bioengineering https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10091078 (2023).
Google Scholar
Boulanger, M. et al. Deep learning methods to generate synthetic CT from MRI in radiotherapy: a literature review. Phys. Med. 89, 265–281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.07.027 (2021).
Google Scholar
Xiao, F. et al. Deep learning-based synthetic-CT-free photon dose calculation in MR-guided radiotherapy: a proof-of-concept study. Med. Phys. 52, e70106 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.70106 (2025).
Google Scholar
Bahloul, M. A. et al. Advancements in synthetic CT generation from MRI: a review of techniques, and trends in radiation therapy planning. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 25, e14499 (2024).
Google Scholar
O’Connor, L. M. et al. Comparison of synthetic computed tomography generation methods, incorporating male and female anatomical differences, for magnetic resonance imaging-only definitive pelvic radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 12, 822687 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.822687 (2022).
Google Scholar
Emami, H., Dong, M., Nejad-Davarani, S. P. & Glide-Hurst, C. K. Generating synthetic CTs from magnetic resonance images using generative adversarial networks. Med. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13047 (2018).
Google Scholar
Han, X. MR-based synthetic CT generation using a deep convolutional neural network method. Med. Phys. 44, 1408–1419 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12155 (2017).
Google Scholar
Koul, A., Duran, D. & Hernandez-Boussard, T. Synthetic data, synthetic trust: navigating data challenges in the digital revolution. Lancet Digit. Health 7, 100924 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2025.100924 (2025).
Google Scholar
Meyer, C. et al. Artificial intelligence contouring in radiotherapy for organs-at-risk and lymph node areas. Radiat. Oncol. 19, 168 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02554-y (2024).
Google Scholar
Darby, P. et al. Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: a systematic review. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 58, 101144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2026.101144 (2026).
Google Scholar
Lucido, J. J. et al. Validation of clinical acceptability of deep-learning-based automated segmentation of organs-at-risk for head-and-neck radiotherapy treatment planning. Front. Oncol. 13, 1137803 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1137803 (2023).
Google Scholar
Doolan, P. J. et al. A clinical evaluation of the performance of five commercial artificial intelligence contouring systems for radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 13, 1213068 (2023).
Google Scholar
Bitterman, D. S. et al. A randomized controlled crossover trial to evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted heart contouring. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Physics 120, S41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.061 (2024).
Google Scholar
Appenzoller, L. M., Michalski, J. M., Thorstad, W. L., Mutic, S. & Moore, K. L. Predicting dose–volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. Med. Phys. 39, 7446–7461 (2012).
Google Scholar
Chung, C. V. et al. Knowledge-based planning for fully automated radiation therapy treatment planning of 10 different cancer sites. Radiother. Oncol. 202, 110609 (2025).
Google Scholar
Shen, C., Chen, L. & Jia, X. A hierarchical deep reinforcement learning framework for intelligent automatic treatment planning of prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac09a2 (2021).
Google Scholar
Yang, D. et al. Automated treatment planning with deep reinforcement learning for head-and-neck (HN) cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad965d (2024).
Google Scholar
Giraud, P. & Bibault, J. E. Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy: current applications and future trends. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 105, 475–480 (2024).
Google Scholar
Portik, D. et al. Knowledge-based versus deep learning based treatment planning for breast radiotherapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 29, 100539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2024.100539 (2024).
Google Scholar
Parikh, P. J. et al. A multi-institutional phase 2 trial of ablative 5-fraction stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided on-table adaptive radiation therapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 117, 799–808 (2023).
Google Scholar
Leeman, J. E. et al. Magnetic resonance-guided prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy with daily online plan adaptation: results of a prospective phase 1 trial and supplemental cohort. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 7, 100934 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.100934 (2022).
Google Scholar
Yoganathan, S. A., Maria Das, K. J., Agarwal, A. & Kumar, S. Magnitude, impact, and management of respiration-induced target motion in radiotherapy treatment: a comprehensive review. J. Med. Phys. 42, 101–115 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_22_17 (2017).
Google Scholar
Yuan, X. et al. Machine learning in image-based outcome prediction after radiotherapy: a review. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 26, e14559 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14559 (2025).
Google Scholar
Mastroleo, F. et al. Large language models for toxicity extraction in oncology trials: a real-world benchmark in prostate radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 216, 111348 (2026).
Google Scholar
Dudas, D., Dilling, T. J., Jim, H. & Naqa, I. E. Effective use of PROs for survival prediction: Transformer-based modelling in NSCLC patients. Radiother. Oncol. 218, 111441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111441 (2026).
Google Scholar
Reuter, L. M. et al. Prediction of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a radiomics and dosiomics machine learning approach using the prospective multicenter RTOG 0617 and REQUITE trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 125, 1149–1159 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2026.01.031 (2026).
Google Scholar
Men, K. et al. A deep learning model for predicting xerostomia due to radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the RTOG 0522 clinical trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 105, 440–447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.009 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dehelean, D. C. et al. Evaluating large language models as an educational tool for meningioma patients: patient and clinician perspectives. Radiat. Oncol. 20, 101 (2025).
Google Scholar
Olson, K. D. et al. Use of ambient AI scribes to reduce administrative burden and professional burnout. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e2534976 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.34976 (2025).
Google Scholar
Duggan, M. J. et al. Clinician experiences with ambient scribe technology to assist with documentation burden and efficiency. JAMA Netw. Open. 8, e2460637 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60637 (2025).
Google Scholar
Shah, S. J. et al. Physician perspectives on ambient AI scribes. JAMA Netw. Open. 8, e251904 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lee, P., Bubeck, S. & Petro, J. Benefits, limits, and risks of GPT-4 as an AI chatbot for medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 1233–1239 (2023).
Google Scholar
Vitriol, J. A., O’Shea, B. A. & Calanchini, J. Less biased yet more defensive: the impact of control processes. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 30, 108–119 (2024).
Google Scholar
Claessens, M. et al. Quality assurance for AI-based applications in radiation therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 32, 421–431 (2022).
Google Scholar
Huang, Y. et al. Deep learning for patient-specific quality assurance: predicting gamma passing rates for IMRT based on delivery fluence informed by log files. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 21, 15330338221104881 https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338221104881 (2022).
Google Scholar
Miao, J., Xu, Y., Men, K. & Dai, J. A feasibility study of deep learning prediction model for VMAT patient-specific QA. Front. Oncol. 15, 1509449 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1509449 (2025).
Google Scholar
Nyflot, M. J., Thammasorn, P., Wootton, L. S., Ford, E. C. & Chaovalitwongse, W. A. Deep learning for patient-specific quality assurance: identifying errors in radiotherapy delivery by radiomic analysis of gamma images with convolutional neural networks. Med. Phys. 46, 456–464 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13338 (2019).
Google Scholar
Luk, S. M. H., Ford, E. C., Phillips, M. H. & Kalet, A. M. Improving the quality of care in radiation oncology using artificial intelligence. Clin. Oncol. 34, 89–98 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ono, T. et al. Applications of artificial intelligence for machine- and patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy: current status and future directions. J. Radiat. Res. 65, 421–432 (2024).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I. A Guide To Outcome Modeling in Radiotherapy and Oncology: Listening to the Data (CRC Press, 2018).
Cui, S. et al. Artificial intelligence for outcome modeling in radiotherapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 32, 351–364 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wang, S., Wang, K. & Lin, J. Predictive value of machine learning for radiation pneumonitis and checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 15, 20961 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05505-z (2025).
Google Scholar
Cui, S., Ten Haken, R. K. & El Naqa, I. Integrating multiomics information in deep learning architectures for joint actuarial outcome prediction in non-small cell lung cancer patients after radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 110, 893–904 (2021).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I. et al. Translation of AI into oncology clinical practice. Oncogene 42, 3089–3097 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G. & King, D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 17, 195 (2019).
Google Scholar
Allen, L. N. et al. Artificial intelligence in primary care: frameworks, challenges, and guardrails. Lancet Prim. Care 2, 100079 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wang, F. & Beecy, A. Implementing AI models in clinical workflows: a roadmap. BMJ Evid. Based Med. 30, 285–287 (2025).
Google Scholar
El Naqa, I., Moran, J. & Ten Haken, R. in The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology. A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists vol. 4 (ed. Van Dyk, J.) 301–320 (Medical Physics Pub, 2020).
Hurkmans, C. et al. A joint ESTRO and AAPM guideline for development, clinical validation and reporting of artificial intelligence models in radiation therapy. Radiother. Oncol. 197, 110345 (2024).
Google Scholar
Pillai, M. et al. Using artificial intelligence to improve the quality and safety of radiation therapy. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 16, 1267–1272 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vandewinckele, L. et al. Overview of artificial intelligence-based applications in radiotherapy: recommendations for implementation and quality assurance. Radiother. Oncol. 153, 55–66 (2020).
Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. Artificial Intelligence & Medical Products: How CBER, CDER, CDRH, and OCP are Working Together (US FDA, 2024).
Xu, J., Zhou, L., Chen, P., Qiu, W. & Liu, M. Whole lifecycle evolution control method of modular product structure oriented to personalized service. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 34, 1108–1124 https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2021.1963480 (2021).
Google Scholar
European Union. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU, 2024).
El Kababji, S. et al. Augmenting insufficiently accruing oncology clinical trials using generative models: validation study. J. Med. Internet Res. 27, e66821 (2025).
Google Scholar
Sumini, M., Teodori, F. & Isolan, L. Digital twins in dosimetry and radiotherapy, a survey and some applications. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 218, 111649 (2024).
Google Scholar
Chang, C. W. et al. A digital twin framework for adaptive treatment planning in radiotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ae835a (2026).
Google Scholar
Olawade, D. B. et al. Digital twin applications in radiology and radiotherapy: applications, challenges, and future perspectives. Eur. J. Radiol. 200, 112865 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2026.112865 (2026).
Google Scholar
Elhaminia, B. et al. Deep learning combining imaging, dose and clinical data for predicting bowel toxicity after pelvic radiotherapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 33, 100710 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2025.100710 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jing, B. et al. Multimodal prediction for radiotherapy-induced hematologic toxicity in rectal cancer patients. NPJ Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-026-01476-0 (2026).
Google Scholar
Fuhrman, J. D. et al. A review of explainable and interpretable AI with applications in COVID-19 imaging. Med. Phys. 49, 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15359 (2022).
Google Scholar
Drabiak, K., Kyzer, S., Nemov, V. & El Naqa, I. AI and machine learning ethics, law, diversity, and global impact. Br. J. Radiol. 96, 20220934 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220934 (2023).
Google Scholar
Luo, Y. et al. A human-in-the-loop based Bayesian network approach to improve imbalanced radiation outcomes prediction for hepatocellular cancer patients with stereotactic body radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 12, 1061024 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1061024 (2022).
Google Scholar
Gooding, M. J., Boukerroui, D., Vasquez Osorio, E., Monshouwer, R. & Brunenberg, E. Multicenter comparison of measures for quantitative evaluation of contouring in radiotherapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 24, 152–158 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2022.11.009 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mayo, C. S. et al. Operational ontology for oncology (O3): a professional society-based, multistakeholder, consensus-driven informatics standard supporting clinical and research use of real-world data from patients treated for cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 117, 533–550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.033 (2023).
Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Lei, Y., Xia, J., Chao, M. & Liu, T. Federated learning for enhanced dose–volume parameter prediction with decentralized data. Med. Phys. 52, 1408–1415 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.17566 (2025).
Google Scholar
Shah, K. D. et al. Linear federated learning for outcome prediction with application to hepatocellular carcinoma radiotherapy. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 9, e2500074 https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-25-00074 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jochems, A. et al. Developing and validating a survival prediction model for NSCLC patients through distributed learning across 3 countries. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99, 344–352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.04.021 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bibault, J. E. & Giraud, P. Deep learning for automated segmentation in radiotherapy: a narrative review. Br. J. Radiol. 97, 13–20 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqad018 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rattay, T. et al. External validation of a predictive model for acute skin radiation toxicity in the REQUITE breast cohort. Front. Oncol. 10, 575909 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.575909 (2020).
Google Scholar
Buchner, J. A. et al. Development and external validation of an MRI-based neural network for brain metastasis segmentation in the AURORA multicenter study. Radiother. Oncol. 178, 109425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.014 (2023).
Google Scholar
Marketing submission recommendations for a predetermined change control plan for artificial intelligence-enabled device software functions. FDA https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/marketing-submission-recommendations-predetermined-change-control-plan-artificial-intelligence (2025).
Good machine learning practice for medical device development: guiding principles. FDA https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/good-machine-learning-practice-medical-device-development-guiding-principles (2025).
Stetson, P. D. et al. Responsible artificial intelligence governance in oncology. NPJ Digit. Med. 8, 407 (2025).
Google Scholar
Kang, J. et al. National cancer institute workshop on artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: training the next generation. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 11, 74–83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2020.06.001 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kwon, Y. S. et al. Artificial intelligence-empowered radiation oncology residency education. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 13, 8–10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2022.09.003 (2023).
Google Scholar
Decoster, R. et al. Towards an accessible, centralised, searchable database for AI courses in Europe: the artificial intelligence in medical imaging and radiation oncology education (AIMIROE) project. Eur. Radiol. Exp. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-026-00745-8 (2026).
Google Scholar
Lerner, M. et al. Clinical validation of a commercially available deep learning software for synthetic CT generation for brain. Radiat. Oncol. 16, 66 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01794-6 (2021).
Google Scholar
Yamauchi, R. et al. Clinical evaluation of deep learning and atlas-based auto-segmentation for organs at risk delineation. Med. Dosim. 49, 167–176 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2023.11.002 (2024).
Google Scholar
Maduro Bustos, L. A. et al. Feasibility evaluation of novel AI-based deep-learning contouring algorithm for radiotherapy. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 24, e14090 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14090 (2023).
Google Scholar
Byrne, M. et al. Varian ethos online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: early results of contouring accuracy, treatment plan quality, and treatment time. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 23, e13479 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13479 (2022).
Google Scholar
Fusco, R. et al. Quantitative imaging decision support (QIDS(TM)) tool consistency evaluation and radiomic analysis by means of 594 metrics in lung carcinoma on chest CT scan. Cancer Control 28, 1073274820985786 https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274820985786 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ryczkowski, A., Jodda, A. & Piotrowski, T. Linking RayStation AI auto-contouring with eclipse TPS: a scripted workflow for clinical integration. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 30, 749–757 https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.109182 (2025).
Google Scholar
Caissie, A. et al. Head and neck radiation therapy patterns of practice variability identified as a challenge to real-world big data: results from the learning from analysis of multicentre big data aggregation (LAMBDA) consortium. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 8, 100925 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.100925 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yahya, N. et al. Independent external validation of predictive models for urinary dysfunction following external beam radiotherapy of the prostate: issues in model development and reporting. Radiother. Oncol. 120, 339–345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.010 (2016).
Google Scholar
Pang, E. P. P. et al. Multicentre evaluation of deep learning CT autosegmentation of the head and neck region for radiotherapy. npj Digit. Med. 8, 312 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01624-z (2025).
Google Scholar
Rusanov, B. et al. Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis. Phys. Engineer. Sci. Med. 48, 301–316 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-024-01513-x (2025).
Google Scholar
Vaassen, F. et al. Evaluation of measures for assessing time-saving of automatic organ-at-risk segmentation in radiotherapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 13, 1–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.12.001 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cross, J. L., Choma, M. A. & Onofrey, J. A. Bias in medical AI: implications for clinical decision-making. PLoS Digit. Health 3, e0000651 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000651 (2024).
Google Scholar
McQuinlan, Y. et al. An investigation into the risk of population bias in deep learning autocontouring. Radiother. Oncol. 186, 109747 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109747 (2023).
Google Scholar
Weissman, G. E. Evaluation and regulation of artificial intelligence medical devices for clinical decision support. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 8, 81–99 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-103123-095824 (2025).
Google Scholar
Guberina, N. et al. Do AI-based contouring algorithms influence physicians in the online adaptive radiotherapy of patients with bladder cancer? Tech. Innov. Patient Support Radiat. Oncol. 38, 100401 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2026.100401 (2026).
Google Scholar
Nealon, K. A. et al. Using failure mode and effects analysis to evaluate risk in the clinical adoption of automated contouring and treatment planning tools. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 12, e344–e353 (2022).
Google Scholar
