Comparative evaluation of two dose optimization methods for image-guided, highly-conformal, tandem and ovoids cervix brachytherapy planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Manchester system is still extensively used to prescribe dose in brachytherapy (BT) for locally advanced cervix cancer, many radiation oncology centers are transitioning to 3D image-guided BT, owing to the excellent anatomy definition offered by modern imaging modalities. As automatic dose optimization is highly desirable for 3D image-based BT, this study comparatively evaluates the performance of two optimization methods used in BT treatment planning--Nelder-Mead simplex (NMS) and simulated annealing (SA)--for a cervix BT computer simulation model incorporating a Manchester-style applicator. Eight model cases were constructed based on anatomical structure data (for high risk-clinical target volume (HR-CTV), bladder, rectum and sigmoid) obtained from measurements on fused MR-CT images for BT patients. D90 and V100 for HR-CTV, D2cc for organs at risk (OARs), dose to point A, conformation index and the sum of dwell times within the tandem and ovoids were calculated for optimized treatment plans designed to treat the HR-CTV in a highly conformal manner. Compared to the NMS algorithm, SA was found to be superior as it could perform optimization starting from a range of initial dwell times, while the performance of NMS was strongly dependent on their initial choice. SA-optimized plans also exhibited lower D2cc to OARs, especially the bladder and sigmoid, and reduced tandem dwell times. For cases with smaller HR-CTV having good separation from adjoining OARs, multiple SA-optimized solutions were found which differed markedly from each other and were associated with different choices for initial dwell times. Finally and importantly, the SA method yielded plans with lower dwell time variability compared with the NMS method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".