Graph neural networks and deep reinforcement learning for simultaneous beam orientation and trajectory optimization of Cyberknife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Despite the high-quality treatment, the long treatment time of the Cyberknife system is believed to be a drawback. The high flexibility of its robotic arm requires meticulous path-finding algorithms to deliver the prescribed dose in the shortest time. Approach . We proposed a Deep Q-learning based on Graph Neural Networks to find the subset of the beams and the order to traverse them. A complex reward function is defined to minimize the distance covered by the robotic arm while avoiding the selection of close beams. Individual beam scores are also generated based on their effect on the beam intensity and are incorporated in the reward function. Main results. The performance of the presented method is evaluated on three clinical cases suffering from lung cancer. Applying this approach leads to an average of 35% reduction in the treatment time while delivering the prescribed dose provided by the physicians. Significance . Shorter treatment times result in a better treatment experience for individual patients, reduces discomfort and the sides effects of inadvertent movements for them. Additionally, it creates the opportunity to treat a higher number of patients in a given time period at the radiation therapy centers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".