MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775520665 · doi:10.1002/mp.12731

Feasibility of predicting tumor motion using online data acquired during treatment and a generalized neural network optimized with offline patient tumor trajectories

2017· article· en· W2775520665 on OpenAlexafffund
P. T. Teo, Syed Bilal Ahmed, Philip Kawalec, Nadia Alayoubi, Neil D. B. Bruce, E. Lyn, Stephen Pistorius

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Safety & Insurance BoardUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCancerCare Manitoba FoundationManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkSliding window protocolArtificial intelligenceBackpropagationTrajectoryMedical imagingPerceptronPattern recognition (psychology)Window (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The accurate prediction of intrafraction lung tumor motion is required to compensate for system latency in image-guided adaptive radiotherapy systems. The goal of this study was to identify an optimal prediction model that has a short learning period so that prediction and adaptation can commence soon after treatment begins, and requires minimal reoptimization for individual patients. Specifically, the feasibility of predicting tumor position using a combination of a generalized (i.e., averaged) neural network, optimized using historical patient data (i.e., tumor trajectories) obtained offline, coupled with the use of real-time online tumor positions (obtained during treatment delivery) was examined. METHODS: A 3-layer perceptron neural network was implemented to predict tumor motion for a prediction horizon of 650 ms. A backpropagation algorithm and batch gradient descent approach were used to train the model. Twenty-seven 1-min lung tumor motion samples (selected from a CyberKnife patient dataset) were sampled at a rate of 7.5 Hz (0.133 s) to emulate the frame rate of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). A sliding temporal window was used to sample the data for learning. The sliding window length was set to be equivalent to the first breathing cycle detected from each trajectory. Performing a parametric sweep, an averaged error surface of mean square errors (MSE) was obtained from the prediction responses of seven trajectories used for the training of the model (Group 1). An optimal input data size and number of hidden neurons were selected to represent the generalized model. To evaluate the prediction performance of the generalized model on unseen data, twenty tumor traces (Group 2) that were not involved in the training of the model were used for the leave-one-out cross-validation purposes. RESULTS: An input data size of 35 samples (4.6 s) and 20 hidden neurons were selected for the generalized neural network. An average sliding window length of 28 data samples was used. The average initial learning period prior to the availability of the first predicted tumor position was 8.53 ± 1.03 s. Average mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.59 ± 0.13 mm and 0.56 ± 0.18 mm were obtained from Groups 1 and 2, respectively, giving an overall MAE of 0.57 ± 0.17 mm. Average root-mean-square-error (RMSE) of 0.67 ± 0.36 for all the traces (0.76 ± 0.34 mm, Group 1 and 0.63 ± 0.36 mm, Group 2), is comparable to previously published results. Prediction errors are mainly due to the irregular periodicities between cycles. Since the errors from Groups 1 and 2 are within the same range, it demonstrates that this model can generalize and predict on unseen data. CONCLUSIONS: This is a first attempt to use an averaged MSE error surface (obtained from the prediction of different patients' tumor trajectories) to determine the parameters of a generalized neural network. This network could be deployed as a plug-and-play predictor for tumor trajectory during treatment delivery, eliminating the need for optimizing individual networks with pretreatment patient data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207