Fully automated treatment planning for head and neck radiotherapy using a voxel-based dose prediction and dose mimicking method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent works in automated radiotherapy treatment planning have used machine learning based on historical treatment plans to infer the spatial dose distribution for a novel patient directly from the planning image. We present a probabilistic, atlas-based approach which predicts the dose for novel patients using a set of automatically selected most similar patients (atlases). The output is a spatial dose objective, which specifies the desired dose-per-voxel, and therefore replaces the need to specify and tune dose-volume objectives. Voxel-based dose mimicking optimization then converts the predicted dose distribution to a complete treatment plan with dose calculation using a collapsed cone convolution dose engine. In this study, we investigated automated planning for right-sided oropharaynx head and neck patients treated with IMRT and VMAT. We compare four versions of our dose prediction pipeline using a database of 54 training and 12 independent testing patients by evaluating 14 clinical dose evaluation criteria. Our preliminary results are promising and demonstrate that automated methods can generate comparable dose distributions to clinical. Overall, automated plans achieved an average of 0.6% higher dose for target coverage evaluation criteria, and 2.4% lower dose at the organs at risk criteria levels evaluated compared with clinical. There was no statistically significant difference detected in high-dose conformity between automated and clinical plans as measured by the conformation number. Automated plans achieved nine more unique criteria than clinical across the 12 patients tested and automated plans scored a significantly higher dose at the evaluation limit for two high-risk target coverage criteria and a significantly lower dose in one critical organ maximum dose. The novel dose prediction method with dose mimicking can generate complete treatment plans in 12-13 min without user interaction. It is a promising approach for fully automated treatment planning and can be readily applied to different treatment sites and modalities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".