Technical Note: A fast inverse direct aperture optimization algorithm for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In a recent article, our group proposed a fast direct aperture optimization (DAO) algorithm for fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) called fast inverse direct aperture optimization (FIDAO). When tested on fixed-gantry IMRT plans, we observed up to a 200-fold increase in the optimization speed. Compared to IMRT, rotational volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a much larger optimization problem and has many more delivery constraints. The purpose of this work is to extend and evaluate FIDAO for inverse planning of VMAT plans. METHODS: arc were generated on the AAPM TG-119 phantom, as well as sample clinical liver and prostate cases. The plans were created by first performing fluence map optimization on 28° equispaced beams, followed by aperture sequencing and arc sequencing with a gantry angular sampling rate of 4°. After arc sequencing, a copy of the plan underwent DAO using the prototype FIDAO algorithm, while another copy of the plan underwent DAO using matRad's DAO method, which served as the conventional algorithm. RESULTS: Both algorithms achieved similar plan quality, although the FIDAO plans had considerably fewer hot spots in the unspecified normal tissue. The optimization time (number of iterations) for FIDAO and the conventional DAO algorithm, respectively, were: 65 s (245) vs 602 s (275) in the TG-119 phantom case; 25 s (85) vs 803 s (159) in the liver case; and 99 s (174) vs 754 s (149) in the prostate case. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated promising speed enhancements in using FIDAO for the direct aperture optimization of VMAT plans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".