Predicting radiation treatment planning evaluation parameter using artificial intelligence and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose : This study suggested a new method predicting the dose-volume parameter for radiation treatment planning evaluation using machine learning, and to evaluate the performance of different learning algorithms in the parameter prediction. Methods: Dose distribution index (DDI) for fifty prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were calculated, and compared to results predicted by machine learning using algorithms, namely, linear regression, tree regression, support vector machine (SVM) and Gaussian process regression (GPR). Root mean square error (RMSE), prediction speed and training time were determined to evaluate the performance of each algorithm. Results : From the results, it is found that the square exponential GPR algorithm had the smallest RMSE, relatively high prediction speed and short training time of 0.0038, 4,100 observation/s and 0.18 s, respectively. All linear regression, SVM and GPR algorithms performed well according to their RMSE in the range of 0.0038–0.0193. However, RMSE of the medium and coarse tree regression algorithms were found larger than 0.03, showing that they are not suitable for predicting DDI in this study. Conclusion : Machine learning can be used to predict dose-volume parameter such as DDI in radiation treatment planning QA. Selection of a suitable machine learning algorithm is important to determine the parameter effectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".