Knowledge‐based planning algorithm for lung SBRT with robust Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis and missing data management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A knowledge-based planning technique is developed based on Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis. A novel missing data management is applied in order to handle missing organs-at-risk and work with a complete dataset. METHODS: Geometric metrics are used to predict DVH metrics for lung SBRT with a retrospective database of 299 patients. In total, 16 DVH metrics were predicted for the main bronchus, heart, esophagus, spinal cord PRV, great vessels, and chest wall. The predictive model is tested on a test group of 50 patients. RESULTS: Mean difference between the observed and predicted values ranges between 1.5 ± 1.9 Gy and 4.9 ± 5.3 Gy for the spinal cord PRV D0.35cc and the main bronchus D0.035cc, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The missing data model implanted in the predictive model is robust in the estimation of the parameters. Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis with missing data management can be used to predict DVH metrics for lung SBRT treatment planning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".