An artificial neural network (ANN)-based lung-tumor motion predictor for intrafractional MR tumor tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To address practical issues of implementing artificial neural networks (ANN) for lung-tumor motion prediction in MRI-based intrafractional lung-tumor tracking. METHODS: A feedforward four-layered ANN structure is used to predict future tumor positions. A back-propagation algorithm is used for ANN learning. Adaptive learning is incorporated by continuously updating weights and learning rate during prediction. An ANN training scheme specific for MRI-based tracking is developed. A multiple-ANN structure is developed to reduce tracking failures caused by the lower imaging rates of MRI. We used particle swarm optimization to optimize the ANN structure and initial weights (IW) for each patient and treatment fraction. Prediction accuracy is evaluated using the 1D superior-inferior lung-tumor motions of 29 lung cancer patients for system delays of 120-520 ms, in increments of 80 ms. The result is compared with four different scenarios: (1), (2) ANN structure optimization + with∕without IW optimization, and (3), (4) no ANN structure optimization + with∕without IW optimization, respectively. An additional simulation is performed to assess the value of optimizing the ANN structure for each treatment fraction. RESULTS: For 120-520 ms system delays, mean RMSE values (ranges 0.0-2.8 mm from 29 patients) of 0.5-0.9 mm are observed, respectively. Using patient specific ANN structures, a 30%-60% decrease in mean RMSE values is observed as a result of IW optimization, alone. No significant advantages in prediction performance are observed, however, by optimizing for each fraction. CONCLUSIONS: A new ANN-based lung-tumor motion predictor is developed for MRI-based intrafractional tumor tracking. The prediction accuracy of our predictor is evaluated using a realistic simulated MR imaging rate and system delays. For 120-520 ms system delays, mean RMSE values of 0.5-0.9 mm (ranges 0.0-2.8 mm from 29 patients) are achieved. Further, the advantage of patient specific ANN structure and IW in lung-tumor motion prediction is demonstrated by a 30%-60% decrease in mean RMSE values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".