Patient-specific daily updated deep learning auto-segmentation for MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Deep Learning (DL) technique has shown great potential but still has limited success in online contouring for MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART). This study proposed a patient-specific DL auto-segmentation (DLAS) strategy using the patient's previous images and contours to update the model and improve segmentation accuracy and efficiency for MRgART. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prototype model was trained for each patient using the first set of MRI and corresponding contours as inputs. The patient-specific model was updated after each fraction with all the available fractional MRIs/contours, and then used to predict the segmentation for the next fraction. During model training, a variant was fitted under consistency constraints, limiting the differences in the volume, length and centroid between the predictions for the latest MRI within a reasonable range. The model performance was evaluated for both organ-at-risks and tumors auto-segmentation for a total of 6 abdominal/pelvic cases (each with at least 8 sets of MRIs/contours) underwent MRgART through Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff Distance (HD95), and was compared with deformable image registration (DIR) and frozen DL model (no updating after pre-training). The contouring time was also recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The proposed model achieved superior performance with higher mean DSC (0.90, 95 % CI: 0.88-0.95), as compared to DIR (0.63, 95 %CI: 0.59-0.68) and frozen DL models (0.74, 95 % CI: 0.71-0.79). As for tumors, the proposed method yielded a median DSC of 0.95, 95 % CI: 0.94-0.97, and a median HD95 of 1.63 mm, 95 % CI: 1.22 mm-2.06 mm. The contouring time was reduced significantly (p < 0.05) using the proposed method (73.4 ± 6.5 secs) compared to the manual process (12 ∼ 22 mins). The online ART time was reduced to 1650 ± 274 seconds with the proposed method, as compared to 3251.8 ± 447 seconds using the original workflow. CONCLUSION: The proposed patient-specific DLAS method can significantly improve the segmentation accuracy and efficiency for longitudinal MRIs, thereby facilitating the routine practice of MRgART.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".