Inverse optimization of objective function weights for treatment planning using clinical dose-volume histograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed and evaluated a novel inverse optimization (IO) model to estimate objective function weights from clinical dose-volume histograms (DVHs). These weights were used to solve a treatment planning problem to generate 'inverse plans' that had similar DVHs to the original clinical DVHs. Our methodology was applied to 217 clinical head and neck cancer treatment plans that were previously delivered at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Canada. Inverse plan DVHs were compared to the clinical DVHs using objective function values, dose-volume differences, and frequency of clinical planning criteria satisfaction. Median differences between the clinical and inverse DVHs were within 1.1 Gy. For most structures, the difference in clinical planning criteria satisfaction between the clinical and inverse plans was at most 1.4%. For structures where the two plans differed by more than 1.4% in planning criteria satisfaction, the difference in average criterion violation was less than 0.5 Gy. Overall, the inverse plans were very similar to the clinical plans. Compared with a previous inverse optimization method from the literature, our new inverse plans typically satisfied the same or more clinical criteria, and had consistently lower fluence heterogeneity. Overall, this paper demonstrates that DVHs, which are essentially summary statistics, provide sufficient information to estimate objective function weights that result in high quality treatment plans. However, as with any summary statistic that compresses three-dimensional dose information, care must be taken to avoid generating plans with undesirable features such as hotspots; our computational results suggest that such undesirable spatial features were uncommon. Our IO-based approach can be integrated into the current clinical planning paradigm to better initialize the planning process and improve planning efficiency. It could also be embedded in a knowledge-based planning or adaptive radiation therapy framework to automatically generate a new plan given a predicted or updated target DVH, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".