MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2027573113 · doi:10.1118/1.4734657

SU‐D‐211‐03: An Automated Inverse Planning Optimization Approach for Single‐ Fraction and Fractionated Radiosurgery Using Gamma Knife Perfexion

2012· article· en· W2027573113 on OpenAlexaff
Kimia Ghobadi, Hamid R. Ghaffari, Dionne M. Aleman, Mark Ruschin, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryNuclear medicineGamma knifeRadiation treatment planningMathematicsFraction (chemistry)MedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to develop an automated inverse planning approach to generate singe-fraction and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment plans for Gamma Knife Perfexion. METHODS: Our automated approach consists of two steps: 1) a grassfire-based algorithm to carefully determine the isocentre locations; 2) a penalty-based optimization to find the optimal shot shapes and their intensities to minimize the deviation of the delivered dose from the objective dose in all structures. For single-fraction SRS, a margin-less approach was taken: conformity of dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) with a steep dose fall-off was prioritized. For fractionated radiosurgery, dose homogeneity was given a higher priority since planning target volumes (PTV) were applied to account for daily setup variation, and these PTVs could overlap with organs-at-risk (OARs). The two-step approach was tested on seven clinical cases with PTV sizes of 0.5cm̂3-56.5cm̂3. In the tested cases, the PTV had 0%-38% overlap with OARs. RESULTS: For single-fraction SRS, the dose to 1mm̂3 brainstem was on average 0.24Gy (range: -2.4Gy to +2.0Gy) lower compared to manually-generated plans. Beam-on time varied with the number of isocentres, but on average was 33min longer than manually- generated plans. The optimization algorithm took 215min on average, while isocentre selection performed in <10s.For fractionated SRS, the average PTV coverage was V95=94.9% (range: 92.7%-97.6%) and the mean dose to 1 mm̂3 brainstem was 87.8% of the prescription dose (range: 35.4%- 108.8%). The mean beam-on time per fraction per dose-per-fraction was 4.8min/Gy (range: 0.9min/Gy-10.3min/Gy). We observed a tradeoff between conformity and OARs-sparing in both plans, and added sensitivity to isocentre locations in fractionated plans. In all the cases, GTV received the full prescription dose. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that automated inverse planning yields improved conformity and OAR-sparing for single- fraction SRS and is capable of generating homogeneous fractionated SRS. This work is partially funded by Elekta Instrument, AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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