A framework for inverse planning of beam-on times for 3D small animal radiotherapy using interactive multi-objective optimisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in precision small animal radiotherapy hardware enable the delivery of increasingly complicated dose distributions on the millimeter scale. Manual creation and evaluation of treatment plans becomes difficult or even infeasible with an increasing number of degrees of freedom for dose delivery and available image data. The goal of this work is to develop an optimisation model that determines beam-on times for a given beam configuration, and to assess the feasibility and benefits of an automated treatment planning system for small animal radiotherapy. The developed model determines a Pareto optimal solution using operator-defined weights for a multiple-objective treatment planning problem. An interactive approach allows the planner to navigate towards, and to select the Pareto optimal treatment plan that yields the most preferred trade-off of the conflicting objectives. This model was evaluated using four small animal cases based on cone-beam computed tomography images. Resulting treatment plan quality was compared to the quality of manually optimised treatment plans using dose-volume histograms and metrics. Results show that the developed framework is well capable of optimising beam-on times for 3D dose distributions and offers several advantages over manual treatment plan optimisation. For all cases but the simple flank tumour case, a similar amount of time was needed for manual and automated beam-on time optimisation. In this time frame, manual optimisation generates a single treatment plan, while the inverse planning system yields a set of Pareto optimal solutions which provides quantitative insight on the sensitivity of conflicting objectives. Treatment planning automation decreases the dependence on operator experience and allows for the use of class solutions for similar treatment scenarios. This can shorten the time required for treatment planning and therefore increase animal throughput. In addition, this can improve treatment standardisation and comparability of research data within studies and among different institutes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".