Dose calculation in proton therapy using a discovery cross‐domain generative adversarial network (DiscoGAN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate dose calculation is a critical step in proton therapy. A novel machine learning-based approach was proposed to achieve comparable accuracy to that of Monte Carlo simulation while reducing the computational time. METHODS: Computed tomography-based patient phantoms were used and three treatment sites were selected (thorax, head, and abdomen), comprising different beam pathways and beam energies. The training data were generated using Monte Carlo simulations. A discovery cross-domain generative adversarial network (DiscoGAN) was developed to perform the mapping between two domains: stopping power and dose, with HU values from CT images incorporated as auxiliary features. The accuracy of dose calculation was quantitatively evaluated in terms of mean relative error (MRE) and mean absolute error (MAE). The relationship between the DiscoGAN performance and other factors such as absolute dose, beam energy and location within the beam cross-section (center and off-center lines) was examined. RESULTS: The DiscoGAN model is found to be effective in dose calculation. For the abdominal case, the MRE is found to 1.47% (mean), 3.30% (maximum) and 0.67% (minimum). For the thoracic case, the MRE is found to ~2.43% (mean), 4.80% (maximum) and 0.71% (minimum). For the head case, the MRE is found to ~2.83% (mean), 4.84% (maximum) and 1.01% (minimum). Comparable accuracy is found in the independent validation dataset (different CT images), achieving a mean MRE of ~1.65% (thorax), 4.02% (head) and 1.64% (abdomen). For the energy span between 80 and 130 MeV, no strong dependency of accuracy on beam energy is found. The results imply that no systematic deviation, either over-dose or under-dose, occurs between the predicted dose and raw dose. CONCLUSION: The DiscoGAN framework demonstrates great potential as a tool for dose calculation in proton therapy, achieving comparable accuracy yet being more efficient relative to Monte Carlo simulation. Its comparison with the pencil beam algorithm (PBA) will be the next step of our research. If successful, our proposed approach is expected to find its use in more advanced applications such as inverse planning and adaptive proton therapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".