MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133121889 · doi:10.1002/mp.14781

Dose calculation in proton therapy using a discovery cross‐domain generative adversarial network (DiscoGAN)

2021· article· en· W3133121889 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoke Zhang, Zongsheng Hu, Guoliang Zhang, Yongdong Zhuang, Yuenan Wang, Hao Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsPROTO Manufacturing (Canada)
FundersSanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodStopping powerProton therapyNuclear medicineThorax (insect anatomy)Beam (structure)Computer sciencePhysicsMathematicsStatisticsMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207