MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984983445 · doi:10.1002/mp.13896

Knowledge-based automated planning with three-dimensional generative adversarial networks.

2020· article· en· W2984983445 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron Babier, Rafid Mahmood, Andrea McNiven, Adam Diamant, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadiation treatment planningBenchmark (surveying)Pipeline (software)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningFeature (linguistics)HistogramMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningImage (mathematics)MedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop a knowledge-based automated planning pipeline that generates treatment plans without feature engineering, using deep neural network architectures for predicting three-dimensional (3D) dose. METHODS: Our knowledge-based automated planning (KBAP) pipeline consisted of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) method that predicts dose for a contoured computed tomography (CT) image followed by two optimization models that learn objective function weights and generate fluence-based plans, respectively. We developed a novel generative adversarial network (GAN)-based KBP approach, a 3D GAN model, which predicts dose for the full 3D CT image at once and accounts for correlations between adjacent CT slices. Baseline comparisons were made against two state-of-the-art deep learning-based KBP methods from the literature. We also developed an additional benchmark, a two-dimensional (2D) GAN model which predicts dose to each axial slice independently. For all models, we investigated the impact of multiplicatively scaling the predictions before optimization, such that the predicted dose distributions achieved all target clinical criteria. Each KBP model was trained on 130 previously delivered oropharyngeal treatment plans. Performance was tested on 87 out-of-sample previously delivered treatment plans. All KBAP plans were evaluated using clinical planning criteria and compared to their corresponding clinical plans. KBP prediction quality was assessed using dose-volume histogram (DVH) differences from the corresponding clinical plans. RESULTS: The best performing KBAP plans were generated using predictions from the 3D GAN model that were multiplicatively scaled. These plans satisfied 77% of all clinical criteria, compared to the clinical plans, which satisfied 67% of all criteria. In general, multiplicatively scaling predictions prior to optimization increased the fraction of clinical criteria satisfaction by 11% relative to the plans generated with nonscaled predictions. Additionally, these KBAP plans satisfied the same criteria as the clinical plans 84% and 8% more frequently as compared to the two benchmark methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first knowledge-based automated planning framework using a 3D generative adversarial network for prediction. Our results, based on 217 oropharyngeal cancer treatment plans, demonstrated superior performance in satisfying clinical criteria and generated more realistic plans as compared to the previous state-of-the-art approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations131
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207