MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272884499 · doi:10.1118/1.4941363

Sample size requirements for knowledge‐based treatment planning

2016· article· en· W2272884499 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin J. Boutilier, Tim Craig, Michael B. Sharpe, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSample size determinationStatisticsMathematicsLogistic regressionSample (material)Set (abstract data type)Linear regressionRegression analysisPrincipal component analysisFunction (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine how training set size affects the accuracy of knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) models. METHODS: The authors selected four models from three classes of KBP approaches, corresponding to three distinct quantities that KBP models may predict: dose-volume histogram (DVH) points, DVH curves, and objective function weights. DVH point prediction is done using the best plan from a database of similar clinical plans; DVH curve prediction employs principal component analysis and multiple linear regression; and objective function weights uses either logistic regression or K-nearest neighbors. The authors trained each KBP model using training sets of sizes n = 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200. The authors set aside 100 randomly selected patients from their cohort of 315 prostate cancer patients from Princess Margaret Cancer Center to serve as a validation set for all experiments. For each value of n, the authors randomly selected 100 different training sets with replacement from the remaining 215 patients. Each of the 100 training sets was used to train a model for each value of n and for each KBT approach. To evaluate the models, the authors predicted the KBP endpoints for each of the 100 patients in the validation set. To estimate the minimum required sample size, the authors used statistical testing to determine if the median error for each sample size from 10 to 150 is equal to the median error for the maximum sample size of 200. RESULTS: The minimum required sample size was different for each model. The DVH point prediction method predicts two dose metrics for the bladder and two for the rectum. The authors found that more than 200 samples were required to achieve consistent model predictions for all four metrics. For DVH curve prediction, the authors found that at least 75 samples were needed to accurately predict the bladder DVH, while only 20 samples were needed to predict the rectum DVH. Finally, for objective function weight prediction, at least 10 samples were needed to train the logistic regression model, while at least 150 samples were required to train the K-nearest neighbor methodology. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the minimum required sample size needed to accurately train KBP models for prostate cancer depends on the specific model and endpoint to be predicted. The authors' results may provide a lower bound for more complicated tumor sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.280
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.280
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207