MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512719816 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/62/2/415

Voxel-based dose prediction with multi-patient atlas selection for automated radiotherapy treatment planning

2016· article· en· W2512719816 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris McIntosh, Thomas G. Purdie

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRadiation treatment planningVoxelComputer scienceAtlas (anatomy)HistogramDose-volume histogramConditional random fieldRadiation therapyArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicineMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automating the radiotherapy treatment planning process is a technically challenging problem. The majority of automated approaches have focused on customizing and inferring dose volume objectives to be used in plan optimization. In this work we outline a multi-patient atlas-based dose prediction approach that learns to predict the dose-per-voxel for a novel patient directly from the computed tomography planning scan without the requirement of specifying any objectives. Our method learns to automatically select the most effective atlases for a novel patient, and then map the dose from those atlases onto the novel patient. We extend our previous work to include a conditional random field for the optimization of a joint distribution prior that matches the complementary goals of an accurately spatially distributed dose distribution while still adhering to the desired dose volume histograms. The resulting distribution can then be used for inverse-planning with a new spatial dose objective, or to create typical dose volume objectives for the canonical optimization pipeline. We investigated six treatment sites (633 patients for training and 113 patients for testing) and evaluated the mean absolute difference in all DVHs for the clinical and predicted dose distribution. The results on average are favorable in comparison to our previous approach (1.91 versus 2.57). Comparing our method with and without atlas-selection further validates that atlas-selection improved dose prediction on average in whole breast (0.64 versus 1.59), prostate (2.13 versus 4.07), and rectum (1.46 versus 3.29) while it is less important in breast cavity (0.79 versus 0.92) and lung (1.33 versus 1.27) for which there is high conformity and minimal dose shaping. In CNS brain, atlas-selection has the potential to be impactful (3.65 versus 5.09), but selecting the ideal atlas is the most challenging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
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

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207