Poster — Thur Eve — 58: Beam Orientation Optimization for IMRT Treatment Planning Using PARETO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning requires tradeoffs to be made between delivering a prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and sparing the organ's‐at‐risk (OARs). Traditionally in clinical practice, treatment planners manually optimize beam orientations, objectives, and/or weights in a time‐consuming, trial‐and‐error process to find some acceptable compromise, with no guarantee that this solution is actually optimal. We propose a novel and powerful fluence and beam orientation optimization package for radiotherapy optimization, called PARETO (Pareto‐Aware Radiotherapy Evolutionary Treatment Optimization), which consists of a multi‐objective genetic algorithm capable of optimizing several objective functions simultaneously and mapping the structure of their trade‐off surface efficiently and in detail. Fitness functions, based on mean dose for the OARs and PTV, as well as fluence gradients are optimized. PARETO intelligently varies all beam orientations and beam fluence to simultaneously optimize all objectives. Over many generations, the entire family of Pareto‐optimal treatment plans, spanning a multi‐dimensional trade‐off surface, is mapped out. Pareto‐optimal solutions are stored in a database and trade‐offs between the competing objectives can be visualized graphically and explored. The efficacy of the solutions provided by PARETO was evaluated using a commercial treatment planning system with five coplanar IMRT treatment plans for a homogenous phantom consisting of three OARs surrounding a central PTV. This work demonstrated that the fitness functions within PARETO have a strong correlation to the dose distribution. Thus, from many Pareto‐optimal plans, the clinician may select the plan which they decide is the most appropriate multi‐objective compromise for a 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".