MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999962521 · doi:10.1002/mp.14033

An artificial neural network to model response of a radiotherapy beam monitoring system

2020· article· en· W2999962521 on OpenAlexaff
Young‐Bin Cho, Makan Farrokhkish, B Norrlinger, Robert K. Heaton, David A. Jaffray, Mohammad Saiful Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruebeamArtificial neural networkBeam (structure)CollimatorLinear particle acceleratorComputer scienceBackpropagationIonization chamberLaser beam qualityOpticsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The integral quality monitor (IQM) is a real-time radiotherapy beam monitoring system, which consists of a spatially sensitive large-area ion chamber, mounted at the collimator of the linear accelerator (linac), and a calculation algorithm to predict the detector signal for each beam segment. By comparing the measured and predicted signals the system validates the beam delivery. The current commercial version of IQM uses an analytic method to predict the signal, which requires a semi-empirical approach to determine and optimize various calculation parameters. The process of developing the calculation model is complex and time consuming, and moreover, the model cannot be easily generalized across various beam delivery platforms with different combinations of beam energy, beam flattening, beam shaping elements, and Linac models. Therefore, as an alternative solution, we investigated the feasibility of developing a machine learning (ML) method, using an artificial neural network (ANN), to predict the ion chamber signal. In developing an ANN, it is not necessary to explicitly account for each of the elements of beam interactions with various structures in the beam path to the ion chamber. METHODS: . Each of 12 different ANN configurations (3 different sets of input features × 4 different sets of number of hidden nodes) was simulated 10 times with randomly selected 80% of data for training and the remaining data for validation. RESULTS: Artificial neural networks with one hidden layer, consisting of 10 nodes, and 10 input features provided optimum results. Once the feature sets were extracted, the time required for the network training was on the order of a few minutes, and the time required to perform an output calculation per field was only fraction of a second. More than 95% of clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) segments were calculated within ± 3.0% modeling error for Varian Truebeam (90% and ±3.3% for Elekta Infinity). A total of 3320 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) segments from Truebeam were calculated using the ANN trained with IMRT fields. More than 95% of the cumulative VMAT beam segments were within 3.6% modeling error, similar to the performance for IMRT segments. In general the modeling error was found to be inversely proportional to the size and intensity of the beam segment. CONCLUSIONS: A prototype ANN has been developed for predicting the signals of the IQM system, with substantially less efforts compared to the analytic model. The performance of the ANN was found to be at least equivalent to that of the analytic method, in terms of average and maximum error, for 6 MV beams on both Varian TrueBeam and Elekta Infinity platforms.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207