MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207011252 · doi:10.1002/mp.15454

Machine learning‐generated decision boundaries for prediction and exploration of patient‐specific quality assurance failures in stereotactic radiosurgery plans

2022· article· en· W4207011252 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Braun, Sarah Quirk, Ekaterina Tchistiakova

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityRadiosurgeryQuality assuranceImaging phantomComputer scienceCollimatorUsabilityRadiation treatment planningMachine learningSet (abstract data type)DosimetryArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsMedicineNuclear medicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a form of radiotherapy treatment during which high radiation dose is delivered in a single or few fractions. These treatments require highly conformal plans with steep dose gradients, which can result in an increase in plan complexity prompting the need for stringent pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measurements to ensure the planned and measured dose distributions agree within clinical standards. Complexity scores and machine learning (ML) techniques may help with prediction of QA outcomes; however interpretability and usability of those results continues to be an area of study. This study investigates the use of plan complexity metrics as input for an ML model to allow for prediction of QA outcomes for SRS plans as measured via three-dimension (3D) phantom dose verification. Explorations into interpretability and predictive ability, as well as a prospective in-clinic implementation using the resulting model were performed. METHODS: Four hundred ninety-eight plans (1571 volumetric modulated arc therapy arcs) were processed via in-house script to generate several complexity scores. 3D phantom dose verification measurement results were extracted and classified as pass or failure (with failures defined as below 95% voxel agreement passing 3%/1-mm gamma criteria with 10% threshold,) and 1472 of the arcs were split into training and testing sets, with 99 arcs as a sequential holdout set. A z-score scaler was trained on the training set and used to scale all other sets. Variations of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf movement variability, aperture complexity, and leaf size, and monitor unit (MU) at control point weighted target area scores were used as input to a support vector classifier to generate a series of 1D, 2D, and 5D decision boundaries. The best performing 5D model was then used within a prospective in-clinic study providing predictions to physicists prior to ordering 3D phantom dose verification measurements for 38 patient plans (112 arcs). The decision to order 3D phantom dose verification measurements was recorded before and after prediction. RESULTS: Best performing 1D threshold and 2D prediction models with best performance produced a QA failure recall and QA passing recall of 1.00 and 0.55, and 0.82 and 0.82, respectively. Best performing 5D prediction model produced a QA failure recall (sensitivity) of 1.00 and QA passing recall (specificity) of 0.72. This model was then used within a prospective in-clinic study providing predictions to physicists prior to ordering 3D phantom dose verification measurements and achieved a QA failure recall of 1.00 and QA passing recall of 0.58. The decision to order 3D phantom dose verification measurements was recorded before and after measurement. A single initially unidentified failing plan of the prospective cohort was successfully predicted to fail by the model. CONCLUSION: Implementation of complexity score-based prediction models for SRS would allow for support of a clinician's decision to reduce time spent performing QA measurements and avoid patient treatment delays (i.e., in case of QA failure).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207