Investigating multi-objective fluence and beam orientation IMRT optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation Oncology treatment planning requires compromises to be made between clinical objectives that are invariably in conflict. It would be beneficial to have a 'bird's-eye-view' perspective of the full spectrum of treatment plans that represent the possible trade-offs between delivering the intended dose to the planning target volume (PTV) while optimally sparing the organs-at-risk (OARs). In this work, the authors demonstrate Pareto-aware radiotherapy evolutionary treatment optimization (PARETO), a multi-objective tool featuring such bird's-eye-view functionality, which optimizes fluence patterns and beam angles for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning. The problem of IMRT treatment plan optimization is managed as a combined monolithic problem, where all beam fluence and angle parameters are treated equally during the optimization. To achieve this, PARETO is built around a powerful multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, called Ferret, which simultaneously optimizes multiple fitness functions that encode the attributes of the desired dose distribution for the PTV and OARs. The graphical interfaces within PARETO provide useful information such as: the convergence behavior during optimization, trade-off plots between the competing objectives, and a graphical representation of the optimal solution database allowing for the rapid exploration of treatment plan quality through the evaluation of dose-volume histograms and isodose distributions. PARETO was evaluated for two relatively complex clinical cases, a paranasal sinus and a pancreas case. The end result of each PARETO run was a database of optimal (non-dominated) treatment plans that demonstrated trade-offs between the OAR and PTV fitness functions, which were all equally good in the Pareto-optimal sense (where no one objective can be improved without worsening at least one other). Ferret was able to produce high quality solutions even though a large number of parameters, such as beam fluence and beam angles, were included in the optimization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".