SU-G-201-09: Evaluation of a Novel Machine-Learning Algorithm for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy Treatment Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A novel, automated, algorithm for permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) treatment planning has been developed. The novel approach uses machine-learning (ML), a form of artificial intelligence, to substantially decrease planning time while simultaneously retaining the clinical intuition of plans created by radiation oncologists. This study seeks to compare the ML algorithm against expert-planned PPB plans to evaluate the equivalency of dosimetric and clinical plan quality. Methods: Plan features were computed from historical high-quality PPB treatments (N = 100) and stored in a relational database (RDB). The ML algorithm matched new PPB features to a highly similar case in the RDB; this initial plan configuration was then further optimized using a stochastic search algorithm. PPB pre-plans (N = 30) generated using the ML algorithm were compared to plan variants created by an expert dosimetrist (RT), and radiation oncologist (MD). Planning time and pre-plan dosimetry were evaluated using a one-way Student's t-test and ANOVA, respectively (significance level = 0.05). Clinical implant quality was evaluated by expert PPB radiation oncologists as part of a qualitative study. Results: Average planning time was 0.44 ± 0.42 min compared to 17.88 ± 8.76 min for the ML algorithm and RT, respectively, a significant advantage [t(9), p = 0.01]. A post-hoc ANOVA [F(2,87) = 6.59, p = 0.002] using Tukey-Kramer criteria showed a significantly lower mean prostate V150% for the ML plans (52.9%) compared to the RT (57.3%), and MD (56.2%) plans. Preliminary qualitative study results indicate comparable clinical implant quality between RT and ML plans with a trend towards preference for ML plans. Conclusion: PPB pre-treatment plans highly comparable to those of an expert radiation oncologist can be created using a novel ML planning model. The use of an ML-based planning approach is expected to translate into improved PPB accessibility and plan uniformity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".