MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295249529 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac8044

OpenKBP-Opt: an international and reproducible evaluation of 76 knowledge-based planning pipelines

2022· article· en· W4295249529 on OpenAlex
Aaron Babier, Rafid Mahmood, Binghao Zhang, Ana María Barragán Montero, Joel Beaudry, Carlos Cárdenas, Yankui Chang, Zijie Chen, Jaehee Chun, Kelly E. Diaz, Harold David Eraso, Erik Faustmann, Sibaji Gaj, Skylar Gay, Mary Gronberg, Bingqi Guo, Junjun He, Gerd Heilemann, Sanchit Hira, Yuliang Huang, Fuxin Ji, Dashan Jiang, Jean Carlo Jimenez Giraldo, Hoyeon Lee, Jun Lian, Shuolin Liu, Keng‐Chi Liu, José Marrugo, K. Miki, Kunio Nakamura, Tucker Netherton, Dan Nguyen, Hamidreza Nourzadeh, Alexander F. I. Osman, Zhao Peng, José Darío Quinto Muñoz, Christian Ramsl, Dong Joo Rhee, Juan David Rodriguez, Hongming Shan, Jeffrey V. Siebers, Mumtaz Hussain Soomro, Kay Sun, Andrés Hoyos, Carlos Eduardo Valderrama, Rob Verbeek, Enpei Wang, Siri Willems, Qi Wu, Xuanang Xu, Sen Yang, Simeng Zhu, Lukas Zimmermann, Kevin L. Moore, Thomas G. Purdie, Andrea McNiven, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueYUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsWilcoxon signed-rank testRadiation treatment planningReference doseVoxelComputer scienceTest planNuclear medicinePipeline (software)ContouringSet (abstract data type)MathematicsRadiation therapyMedicineStatisticsArtificial intelligenceSurgeryWeibull distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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