Robotic path-finding in inverse treatment planning for stereotactic radiosurgery with continuous dose delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Continuous dose delivery in radiation therapy treatments has been shown to decrease total treatment time while improving the dose conformity and distribution homogeneity over the conventional step-and-shoot approach. The authors develop an inverse treatment planning method for Gamma Knife® Perfexion™ that continuously delivers dose along a path in the target. METHODS: The authors' method is comprised of two steps: find a path within the target, then solve a mixed integer optimization model to find the optimal collimator configurations and durations along the selected path. Robotic path-finding techniques, specifically, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) using an extended Kalman filter, are used to obtain a path that travels sufficiently close to selected isocentre locations. SLAM is novelly extended to explore a 3D, discrete environment, which is the target discretized into voxels. Further novel extensions are incorporated into the steering mechanism to account for target geometry. RESULTS: The SLAM method was tested on seven clinical cases and compared to clinical, Hamiltonian path continuous delivery, and inverse step-and-shoot treatment plans. The SLAM approach improved dose metrics compared to the clinical plans and Hamiltonian path continuous delivery plans. Beam-on times improved over clinical plans, and had mixed performance compared to Hamiltonian path continuous plans. The SLAM method is also shown to be robust to path selection inaccuracies, isocentre selection, and dose distribution. CONCLUSIONS: The SLAM method for continuous delivery provides decreased total treatment time and increased treatment quality compared to both clinical and inverse step-and-shoot plans, and outperforms existing path methods in treatment quality. It also accounts for uncertainty in treatment planning by accommodating inaccuracies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".