MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2013447357 · doi:10.1118/1.4740113

Poster - Thur Eve - 06: Comparison of an open source genetic algorithm to the commercially used IPSA for generation of seed distributions in LDR prostate brachytherapy

2012· article· en· W2013447357 on OpenAlexaff
Philip McGeachy, Rao Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyProstateProstate cancerRadiation treatment planningProstate brachytherapyNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedicineRadiation therapyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In early stage prostate cancer, low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy is a favorable treatment modality, where small radioactive seeds are permanently implanted throughout the prostate. Treatment centres currently rely on a commercial optimization algorithm, IPSA, to generate seed distributions for treatment plans. However, commercial software does not allow the user access to the source code, thus reducing the flexibility for treatment planning and impeding any implementation of new and, perhaps, improved clinical techniques. An open source genetic algorithm (GA) has been encoded in MATLAB to generate seed distributions for a simplified prostate and urethra model. To assess the quality of the seed distributions created by the GA, both the GA and IPSA were used to generate seed distributions for two clinically relevant scenarios and the quality of the GA distributions relative to IPSA distributions and clinically accepted standards for seed distributions was investigated. The first clinically relevant scenario involved generating seed distributions for three different prostate volumes (19.2 cc, 32.4 cc, and 54.7 cc). The second scenario involved generating distributions for three separate seed activities (0.397 mCi, 0.455 mCi, and 0.5 mCi). Both GA and IPSA met the clinically accepted criteria for the two scenarios, where distributions produced by the GA were comparable to IPSA in terms of full coverage of the prostate by the prescribed dose, and minimized dose to the urethra, which passed straight through the prostate. Further, the GA offered improved reduction of high dose regions (i.e hot spots) within the planned target volume.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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