Potential of a probabilistic framework for target prediction from surrogate respiratory motion during lung radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose. Respiration-induced motion introduces significant positioning uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments for thoracic sites. Accounting for this motion is a non-trivial task commonly addressed with surrogate-based strategies and latency compensating techniques. This study investigates the potential of a new unified probabilistic framework to predict both future target motion in real-time from a surrogate signal and associated uncertainty. Method. A Bayesian approach is developed, based on a Kalman filter theory adapted specifically for surrogate measurements. Breathing motions are collected simultaneously from a lung target, two external surrogates (abdominal and thoracic markers) and an internal surrogate (liver structure) for 9 volunteers during 4 min, in which severe breathing changes occur to assess the robustness of the method. A comparison with an artificial non-linear neural network (NN) is performed, although no confidence interval prediction is provided. A static worst-case scenario and a simple static design are investigated. Results. Although the NN can reduce the prediction errors from thoracic surrogate in some cases, the Bayesian framework outperforms in most cases the NN when using the other surrogates: bias on predictions is reduced by 38% and 16% on average when using respectively the liver and the abdomen for the simple scenario, and by respectively 40% and 31% for the worst-case scenario. The standard deviation of residuals is reduced on average by up to 42%. The Bayesian method is also found to be more robust to increasing latencies. The thoracic marker appears to be less reliable to predict the target position, while the liver shows to be a better surrogate. A statistical test confirms the significance of both observations. Conclusion. The proposed framework predicts both the future target position and the associated uncertainty, which can be valuably used to further assist motion management decisions. Further investigation is required to improve the predictions by using an adaptive version of the proposed framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".