Understanding machine learning classifier decisions in automated radiotherapy quality assurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of generating radiotherapy treatments demands a rigorous quality assurance (QA) process to ensure patient safety and to avoid clinically significant errors. Machine learning classifiers have been explored to augment the scope and efficiency of the traditional radiotherapy treatment planning QA process. However, one important gap in relying on classifiers for QA of radiotherapy treatment plans is the lack of understanding behind a specific classifier prediction. We develop explanation methods to understand the decisions of two automated QA classifiers: (1) a region of interest (ROI) segmentation/labeling classifier, and (2) a treatment plan acceptance classifier. For each classifier, a local interpretable model-agnostic explanation (LIME) framework and a novel adaption of team-based Shapley values framework are constructed. We test these methods in datasets for two radiotherapy treatment sites (prostate and breast), and demonstrate the importance of evaluating QA classifiers using interpretable machine learning approaches. We additionally develop a notion of explanation consistency to assess classifier performance. Our explanation method allows for easy visualization and human expert assessment of classifier decisions in radiotherapy QA. Notably, we find that our team-based Shapley approach is more consistent than LIME. The ability to explain and validate automated decision-making is critical in medical treatments. This analysis allows us to conclude that both QA classifiers are moderately trustworthy and can be used to confirm expert decisions, though the current QA classifiers should not be viewed as a replacement for the human QA process.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".