Fast stereotactic radiosurgery planning using patient-specific beam angle optimization and automation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) planning for multi-metastatic cases is a complex and intensive process. A manual planning strategy starts with a template-based set of beam angles and applies modifications though a trial and error process. Beam angle optimization uses patient specific geometric heuristics to determine beam angles that provide optimal target coverage and avoid treating through Organs-at-Risk (OARs). This study expands on a collision prediction application developed using an application programming interface, integrating beam angle optimization and collision prediction into a Stereotactic Optimized Automated Radiotherapy (SOAR) planning algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patient plans, previously treated with SRS for multi-metastatic intracranial tumors, were selected for a retrospective plan study comparing the manual planning strategy to SOAR. The SOAR algorithm was used to select isocenters, table, collimator, and gantry angles, and target groupings for the optimized plans. Dose-volume metrics for relevant OARs and PTVs were compared using double-sided Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α = 0.05). A subset of five patients were included in an efficiency study comparing manual planning times to SOAR automated times. RESULTS: OAR dose metrics compared between planning strategies showed no statistical difference for the dataset of twenty-five plans. Differences in maximum PTV dose and the conformity index were improved for SOAR planning and statistically significant. The median SOAR planning time was 9.8 min compared to 55 min for the manual planning strategy. CONCLUSIONS: SOAR planning was comparable in plan quality to a manual planning strategy with the possibility for greatly improving planning efficiency through automation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".