Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this work is to develop an interactive treatment planning platform that permits real-time manipulation of dose distributions including DVHs and other dose metrics. The hypothesis underlying the approach proposed here is that the process of evaluating potential dose distribution options and deciding on the best clinical trade-offs may be separated from the derivation of the actual delivery parameters used for the patient's treatment. For this purpose a novel algorithm for deriving an Achievable Dose Estimate (ADE) was developed. The ADE algorithm is computationally efficient so as to update dose distributions in effectively real-time while accurately incorporating the limits of what can be achieved in practice. The resulting system is a software environment for interactive real-time manipulation of dose that permits the clinician to rapidly develop a fully customized 3D dose distribution. Graphical navigation of dose distributions is achieved by a sophisticated method of identifying contributing fluence elements, modifying those elements and re-computing the entire dose distribution. 3D dose distributions are calculated in ~2-20 ms. Including graphics processing overhead, clinicians may visually interact with the dose distribution (e.g. 'drag' a DVH) and display updates of the dose distribution at a rate of more than 20 times per second. Preliminary testing on various sites shows that interactive planning may be completed in ~1-5 min, depending on the complexity of the case (number of targets and OARs). Final DVHs are derived through a separate plan optimization step using a conventional VMAT planning system and were shown to be achievable within 2% and 4% in high and low dose regions respectively. With real-time interactive planning trade-offs between Target(s) and OARs may be evaluated efficiently providing a better understanding of the dosimetric options available to each patient in static or adaptive RT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".