MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909066081 · doi:10.1002/mp.13379

Prediction of skin dose in low‐<scp>kV</scp> intraoperative radiotherapy using machine learning models trained on results of <i>in vivo</i> dosimetry

2019· article· en· W2909066081 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Avanzo, G. Pirrone, Mario Mileto, Samuele Massarut, Joseph Stancanello, Milad Baradaran‐Ghahfarokhi, Alexandra Rink, L. Barresi, Lorenzo Vinante, Erica Piccoli, Marco Trovò, Issam El Naqa, Giovanna Sartor

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryRadiation therapyIn vivoMedical physicsNuclear medicineMedicineComputer scienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study was to implement a machine learning model to predict skin dose from targeted intraoperative (TARGIT) treatment resulting in timely adoption of strategies to limit excessive skin dose. Methods A total of 283 patients affected by invasive breast carcinoma underwent TARGIT with a prescribed dose of 6 Gy at 1 cm, after lumpectomy. Radiochromic films were used to measure the dose to the skin for each patient. Univariate statistical analysis was performed to identify correlation of physical and patient variables with measured dose. After feature selection of predictors of in vivo skin dose, machine learning models stepwise linear regression (SLR), support vector regression (SVR), ensemble with bagging or boosting, and feed forward neural networks were trained on results of in vivo dosimetry to derive models to predict skin dose. Models were evaluated by tenfold cross validation and ranked according to root mean square error (RMSE) and adjusted correlation coefficient of true vs predicted values (adj‐R2). Results The predictors correlated with in vivo dosimetry were the distance of skin from source, depth‐dose in water at depth of the applicator in the breast, use of a replacement source, and irradiation time. The best performing model was SVR, which scored RMSE and adj‐R2, equal to 0.746 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 95% CI 0.737,0.756] and 0.481 (95% CI 0.468,0.494), respectively, on the tenfold cross validation. Conclusion The model trained on results of in vivo dosimetry can be used to predict skin dose during setup of patient for TARGIT and this allows for timely adoption of strategies to prevent of excessive skin dose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207