OpenKBP-Opt: an international and reproducible evaluation of 76 knowledge-based planning pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. To establish an open framework for developing plan optimization models for knowledge-based planning (KBP). Approach. Our framework includes radiotherapy treatment data (i.e. reference plans) for 100 patients with head-and-neck cancer who were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. That data also includes high-quality dose predictions from 19 KBP models that were developed by different research groups using out-of-sample data during the OpenKBP Grand Challenge. The dose predictions were input to four fluence-based dose mimicking models to form 76 unique KBP pipelines that generated 7600 plans (76 pipelines × 100 patients). The predictions and KBP-generated plans were compared to the reference plans via: the dose score, which is the average mean absolute voxel-by-voxel difference in dose; the deviation in dose-volume histogram (DVH) points; and the frequency of clinical planning criteria satisfaction. We also performed a theoretical investigation to justify our dose mimicking models. Main results. The range in rank order correlation of the dose score between predictions and their KBP pipelines was 0.50–0.62, which indicates that the quality of the predictions was generally positively correlated with the quality of the plans. Additionally, compared to the input predictions, the KBP-generated plans performed significantly better ( P < 0.05; one-sided Wilcoxon test) on 18 of 23 DVH points. Similarly, each optimization model generated plans that satisfied a higher percentage of criteria than the reference plans, which satisfied 3.5% more criteria than the set of all dose predictions. Lastly, our theoretical investigation demonstrated that the dose mimicking models generated plans that are also optimal for an inverse planning model. Significance. This was the largest international effort to date for evaluating the combination of KBP prediction and optimization models. We found that the best performing models significantly outperformed the reference dose and dose predictions. In the interest of reproducibility, our data and code is freely available.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".