A self‐adaptive case‐based reasoning system for dose planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the male population. Radiotherapy is often used in the treatment for prostate cancer. In radiotherapy treatment, the oncologist makes a trade-off between the risk and benefit of the radiation, i.e., the task is to deliver a high dose to the prostate cancer cells and minimize side effects of the treatment. The aim of our research is to develop a software system that will assist the oncologist in planning new treatments. METHODS: A nonlinear case-based reasoning system is developed to capture the expertise and experience of oncologists in treating previous patients. Importance (weights) of different clinical parameters in the dose planning is determined by the oncologist based on their past experience, and is highly subjective. The weights are usually fixed in the system. In this research, the weights are updated automatically each time after generating a treatment plan for a new patient using a group based simulated annealing approach. RESULTS: The developed approach is analyzed on the real data set collected from the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, UK. Extensive experiments show that the dose plan suggested by the proposed method is coherent with the dose plan prescribed by an experienced oncologist or even better. CONCLUSIONS: The developed case-based reasoning system enables the use of knowledge and experience gained by the oncologist in treating new patients. This system may play a vital role to assist the oncologist in making a better decision in less computational time; it utilizes the success rate of the previously treated patients and it can also be used in teaching and training processes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".