Sci-Thur AM: Planning - 04: Evaluation of the fluence complexity, solution quality, and run efficiency produced by five fluence parameterizations implemented in PARETO multiobjective radiotherapy treatment planning software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: PARETO (Pareto-Aware Radiotherapy Evolutionary Treatment Optimization) is a novel multiobjective treatment planning system that performs beam orientation and fluence optimization simultaneously using an advanced evolutionary algorithm. In order to reduce the number of parameters involved in this enormous search space, we present several methods for modeling the beam fluence. The parameterizations are compared using innovative tools that evaluate fluence complexity, solution quality, and run efficiency. METHODS: A PARETO run is performed using the basic weight (BW), linear gradient (LG), cosine transform (CT), beam group (BG), and isodose-projection (IP) methods for applying fluence modulation over the projection of the Planning Target Volume in the beam's-eye-view plane. The solutions of each run are non-dominated with respect to other trial solutions encountered during the run. However, to compare the solution quality of independent runs, each run competes against every other run in a round robin fashion. Score is assigned based on the fraction of solutions that survive when a tournament selection operator is applied to the solutions of the two competitors. To compare fluence complexity, a modulation index, fractal dimension, and image gradient entropy are calculated for the fluence maps of each optimal plan. RESULTS: We have found that the LG method results in superior solution quality for a spine phantom, lung patient, and cauda equina patient. The BG method produces solutions with the highest degree of fluence complexity. Most methods result in comparable run times. CONCLUSION: The LG method produces superior solution quality using a moderate degree of fluence modulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.011 | 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".