Interfractional dose accumulation for MR-guided liver SBRT: Variation among algorithms is highly patient- and fraction-dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Daily plan adaptations could take the dose delivered in previous fractions into account. Due to high dose delivered per fraction, low number of fractions, steep dose gradients, and large interfractional organ deformations, this might be particularly important for liver SBRT. This study investigates inter-algorithm variation of interfractional dose accumulation for MR-guided liver SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 27 consecutive MR-guided liver SBRT treatments of 67.5 Gy in three (n = 15) or 50 Gy in five fractions (n = 12), both prescribed to the GTV. We calculated fraction doses on daily patient anatomy, warped these doses to the simulation MRI using seven different algorithms, and accumulated the warped doses. Thus, we obtained differences in planned doses and warped or accumulated doses for each algorithm. This enabled us to calculate the inter-algorithm variations in warped doses per fraction and in accumulated doses per treatment course. RESULTS: due to dose warping by these intensity-based algorithms was 10.4 percentage points (0.3 to 43.7) between fractions and 8.6 (0.3 to 24.9) between accumulated treatment doses. As seen by these ranges, the variation was very dependent on the patient and the fraction being analyzed. Nevertheless, no correlations between patient or plan characteristics on the one hand and inter-algorithm dose warping variation on the other hand was found. CONCLUSION: Inter-algorithm dose accumulation variation is highly patient- and fraction-dependent for MR-guided liver SBRT. We advise against trusting a single algorithm for dose accumulation in liver SBRT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".