MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2915483278 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab091c

Integrating DVH criteria into a column generation algorithm for VMAT treatment planning

2019· article· en· W2915483278 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Mahnam, Michel Gendreau, Nadia Lahrichi, Louis-Martin Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVoxelAlgorithmComputer scienceRadiation treatment planningHistogramRobustness (evolution)Dose-volume histogramMathematical optimizationMathematicsRadiation therapyArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning is an efficient treatment technique with a high degree of flexibility in terms of dose rate, gantry speed, and aperture shapes during rotation around the patient. However, the dynamic nature of VMAT results in a large-scale nonconvex optimization problem. Determining the priority of the tissues and voxels to obtain clinically acceptable treatment plans poses additional challenges for VMAT optimization. The main purpose of this paper is to develop an automatic planning approach integrating dose-volume histogram (DVH) criteria in direct aperture optimization for VMAT, by adjusting the model parameters during the algorithm. The proposed algorithm is based on column generation, an optimization technique that sequentially generates the apertures and optimizes the corresponding intensities. We take the advantage of iterative procedure in this method to modify the weight vector of the penalty function based on the DVH criteria and decrease the use of trial-and-error in the search for clinically acceptable plans. We evaluate the efficiency of the algorithm and treatment quality using a clinical prostate case and a challenging head-and-neck case. In both cases, we generate 15 random initial weight vectors to assess the robustness of the algorithm. In the prostate case, our methodology obtained clinically acceptable plans in all instances with only a 10% increase in the computational time, while simple VMAT optimization found just three acceptable plans. To have an idea with respect to the existing software, we compared the obtained DVH to a commercial software. The quality of the diagrams of the proposed method, especially for the healthy tissues, is significantly better while the computational time is less. In the head-and-neck case, 93.3% of the clinically acceptable plans are obtained while no plan was acceptable in simple VMAT. In sum, the results demonstrate the ability of the proposed optimization algorithm to obtain clinically acceptable plans without human intervention and also its robustness to weight parameters. Moreover, our proposed weight adjustment procedure proves to reduce the symmetry in the solution space and the time required for the post-optimization phase.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→