<scp>PARETO</scp>: A novel evolutionary optimization approach to multiobjective IMRT planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In radiation therapy treatment planning, the clinical objectives of uniform high dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and low dose to the organs-at-risk (OARs) are invariably in conflict, often requiring compromises to be made between them when selecting the best treatment plan for a particular patient. In this work, the authors introduce Pareto-Aware Radiotherapy Evolutionary Treatment Optimization (pareto), a multiobjective optimization tool to solve for beam angles and fluence patterns in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning. METHODS: pareto is built around a powerful multiobjective genetic algorithm (GA), which allows us to treat the problem of IMRT treatment plan optimization as a combined monolithic problem, where all beam fluence and angle parameters are treated equally during the optimization. We have employed a simple parameterized beam fluence representation with a realistic dose calculation approach, incorporating patient scatter effects, to demonstrate feasibility of the proposed approach on two phantoms. The first phantom is a simple cylindrical phantom containing a target surrounded by three OARs, while the second phantom is more complex and represents a paraspinal patient. RESULTS: pareto results in a large database of Pareto nondominated solutions that represent the necessary trade-offs between objectives. The solution quality was examined for several PTV and OAR fitness functions. The combination of a conformity-based PTV fitness function and a dose-volume histogram (DVH) or equivalent uniform dose (EUD) -based fitness function for the OAR produced relatively uniform and conformal PTV doses, with well-spaced beams. A penalty function added to the fitness functions eliminates hotspots. Comparison of resulting DVHs to those from treatment plans developed with a single-objective fluence optimizer (from a commercial treatment planning system) showed good correlation. Results also indicated that pareto shows promise in optimizing the number of beams. CONCLUSIONS: This initial evaluation of the evolutionary optimization software tool pareto for IMRT treatment planning demonstrates feasibility and provides motivation for continued development. Advantages of this approach over current commercial methods for treatment planning are many, including: (1) fully automated optimization that avoids human controlled iterative optimization and potentially improves overall process efficiency, (2) formulation of the problem as a true multiobjective one, which provides an optimized set of Pareto nondominated solutions refined over hundreds of generations and compiled from thousands of parameter sets explored during the run, and (3) rapid exploration of the final nondominated set accomplished by a graphical interface used to select the best treatment option for the patient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".