MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946615151 · doi:10.1002/acm2.12609

iCONE‐SRS: Development of inverse treatment planning for cone‐based stereotactic radiosurgery

2019· article· en· W2946615151 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Lausch, Brian Nghiem, Michelle Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation treatment planningRadiosurgeryMedicineNuclear medicineMedical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: At present, commercially available treatment planning systems (TPS) only offer manual planning functionality for cone-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) leading to labor intensive treatment planning. Our objective was to reduce treatment planning time through development of a simple inverse TPS for cone-based SRS. METHODS: The iCONE TPS was developed using MATLAB (R2015a, The MathWorks Inc.) and serves as an inverse planning adjunct to a commercially available TPS. Simulated annealing is used to determine optimal table angle, gantry start and stop angles, and cone sizes for a user-defined number of non-coplanar arcs relative to user-defined dose objectives. iCONE and clinically generated plans were compared through a retrospective planning study of 60 patients treated for 1-3 brain metastases (total of 100 lesions). RESULTS: Planning target volume (PTV) coverage was enforced for all plans through normalization. PTV maximum dose was constrained to be within 120%-135% of the prescription dose. The median conformity index for iCONE plans was 1.35, 1.33, and 1.32 for 1, 2, and 3-target cases respectively corresponding to a median increase of 0.05 (range = -0.1 to 0.5, P < 0.05), 0.06 (range = -0.83 to 0.53, P < 0.05), and 0.03 (range = -1.21 to 0.74, P > 0.05) relative to the clinical plans. No clinically significant differences were found with respect to the dose to organs-at-risk. Median iCONE planning times were approximately a factor of five lower than consensus estimates for manual planning provided by local experienced SRS planners. CONCLUSIONS: A simple inverse TPS for cone-based SRS was developed. Plan quality was found to be similar to manually generated plans; however, degradation was observed in some cases highlighting the need for continued oversight and manual adjustment by experienced planners if implemented in the clinic. A factor of five reduction in treatment planning time was estimated.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207