MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1202654100 · doi:10.1118/1.4925458

MO‐F‐CAMPUS‐T‐02: Optimizing Orientations of Hundreds of Intensity‐Modulated Beams to Treat Multiple Brain Targets

2015· article· en· W1202654100 on OpenAlexaff
Lijun Ma, Peng Dong, V Keeling, Shakhawoat Hossain, S Ahmad, Larson Da, A Sahgal

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruebeamRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineDICOMBrain cancerOrientation (vector space)Computer scienceMedicineBeam (structure)Radiation therapyMedical physicsBiomedical engineeringPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorCancerMathematicsOpticsRadiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate a new modulated beam orientation optimization (MBOO) approach maximizing treatment planning quality for the state‐of‐the‐art flattening filter free (FFF) beam that has enabled rapid treatments of multiple brain targets. Methods: MBOO selects and optimizes a large number of intensity‐modulated beams (400 or more) from all accessible beam angles surrounding a patient's skull. The optimization algorithm was implemented on a standalone system that interfaced with the 3D Dicom images and structure sets. A standard published data set that consisted of 1 to 12 metastatic brain tumor combinations was selected for MBOO planning. The planning results from various coplanar and non‐coplanar configurations via MBOO were then compared with the results obtained from a clinical volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery system (Truebeam RapidArc, Varian Oncology). Results: When planning a few number of targets (n<4), MBOO produced results equivalent to non‐coplanar multi‐arc VMAT planning in terms of target volume coverage and normal tissue sparing. For example, the 12‐Gy and 4‐Gy normal brain volumes for the 3‐target plans differed by less than 1 mL ( 3.0 mLvs 3.8 mL; and 35.2 mL vs 36.3 mL, respectively) for MBOO versus VMAT. However, when planning a larger number of targets (n≥4), MBOO significantly reduced the dose to the normal brain as compared to VMAT, though the target volume coverage was equivalent. For example, the 12‐Gy and 4‐Gy normal brain volumes for the 12‐target plans were 10.8 mL vs. 18.0 mL and 217.9 mL vs. 390.0 mL, respectively for the non‐coplanar MBOO versus the non‐coplanar VMAT treatment plans, yielding a reduction in volume of more than 60% for the case. Conclusion: MBOO is a unique approach for maximizing normal tissue sparing when treating a large number (n≥4) of brain tumors with FFF linear accelerators. Dr Ma and Dr Sahgal are currently on the board of international society of stereotactic radiosurgery. Dr Sahgal has received support for educational presentations from Elekta company

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→