Poster - Thur Eve - 69: Computational Study of DVH-guided Cancer Treatment Planning Optimization Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare methods to incorporate the Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) curves into the treatment planning optimization. Method: The performance of three methods, namely, the conventional Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) model, a convex moment-based constrained optimization approach, and an unconstrained convex moment-based penalty approach, is compared using anonymized data of a prostate cancer patient. Three plans we generated using the corresponding optimization models. Four Organs at Risk (OARs) and one Tumor were involved in the treatment planning. The OARs and Tumor were discretized into total of 50,221 voxels. The number of beamlets was 943. We used commercially available optimization software Gurobi and Matlab to solve the models. Plan comparison was done by recording the model runtime followed by visual inspection of the resulting dose volume histograms. Conclusion: We demonstrate the effectiveness of the moment-based approaches to replicate the set of prescribed DVH curves. The unconstrained convex moment-based penalty approach is concluded to have the greatest potential to reduce the computational effort and holds a promise of substantial computational speed up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".