MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293176373 · doi:10.5114/jcb.2022.118995

Commissioning of GPU-based multi-criteria optimizer combined with plan navigation tools for high-dose-rate brachytherapy

2022· article· en· W4293176373 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric Bélanger, Sylviane Aubin, Luc Beaulieu, Éric Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Brachytherapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyWorkflowDICOMRadiation treatment planningComputer scienceNuclear medicineDosimetryAlgorithmMedicineDatabaseRadiation therapyArtificial intelligenceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Recently, our GPU-based multi-criteria optimization (gMCO) algorithm has been integrated in a graphical user interface (gMCO-GUI) that allows real-time plan navigation through a gMCO-generated set of Pareto-optimal plans for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. This work reports on the commissioning of the gMCO algorithm into clinical workflow. Material and methods: Our MCO workflow was validated against Oncentra Prostate v. 4.2.2 (OcP) and Oncentra Brachy v. 4.6.0 (OcB). 40 HDR prostate brachytherapy patients (20 with OcP and 20 with OcB) were retrospectively re-planned with gMCO algorithm by generating 2,000 Pareto-optimal plans. A single gMCO treatment plan was exported using gMCO-GUI plan navigation tools. The optimized dwell positions and dwell times of gMCO plans were exported via DICOM RTPLAN files to OcP/OcB, where final dosimetry was calculated. TG43 implementation in gMCO was validated against the consensus data of flexisource. Five analytical shapes were used as the ground truth for volume calculations. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) curves generated by gMCO were compared with the ones generated by OcP/OcB. 3D dose distributions (and isodose lines) were validated against OcP/OcB using dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95% undirected Hausdorff distance (95% HD), and γ analysis. Results: Differences between -0.4% and 0.3% were observed between gMCO calculated dose rates and the flexisource consensus data. gMCO volumes were within ±2% agreement in 3/5 volumes (deviations within -2.9% and 0.1%). For 9 key DVH indices, the differences between gMCO and OcP/OcB were within ±1.2%. Regarding the accuracy of key isodose lines, the mean DSC was greater than 0.98, and the mean 95% HD was below 0.4 mm. The fraction of voxels with γ ≤ 1 was greater than 99% for all cases with 1%/1 mm threshold. Conclusions: The GPU-based MCO workflow was successfully integrated into the clinical workflow and validated against OcP and OcB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueJournal of Contemporary BrachytherapySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207