Dose prescription with spatial uncertainty for peripheral lung <scp>SBRT</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current clinical practice is to prescribe to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) in 4D stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung. Frequently the PTV margin has a very low physical density so that the internal target volume (ITV) receives an unnecessarily high dose. This study investigates the alternative of prescribing to the ITV while including the effects of positional uncertainties. Five patients were retrospectively studied with volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans. Five plans were produced for each patient: a static plan prescribed to PTV D95%, three probabilistic plans prescribed to ITV D95% and a static plan re‐prescribed to ITV D95% after inverse planning. For the three probabilistic plans, the scatter kernel in the dose calculation was convolved with a spatial uncertainty distribution consisting of either a uniform distribution extending ±5 mm in the three orthogonal directions, a distribution consisting of delta functions at ±5 mm, or a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation 5 mm. Median ITV D50% is 23% higher than the prescribed dose for static planning and only 10% higher than the prescribed dose for prescription to the ITV. The choice of uncertainty distribution has less than 2% effect on the median ITV dose. Re‐prescribing a static plan and evaluating with a probabilistic dose calculation results in a median ITV D95% which is 1.5% higher than when planning probabilistically. This study shows that a robust probabilistic approach to planning SBRT lung treatments results in the ITV receiving a dose closer to the intended prescription. The exact form of the uncertainty distribution is not found to be critical.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".