Automatic Assessment of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy Outcome in Brain Metastasis Using Longitudinal Segmentation on Serial MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard clinical approach to assess the radiotherapy outcome in brain metastasis is through monitoring the changes in tumour size on longitudinal MRI. This assessment requires contouring the tumour on many volumetric images acquired before and at several follow-up scans after the treatment that is routinely done manually by oncologists with a substantial burden on the clinical workflow. In this work, we introduce a novel system for automatic assessment of stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) outcome in brain metastasis using standard serial MRI. At the heart of the proposed system is a deep learning-based segmentation framework to delineate tumours longitudinally on serial MRI with high precision. Longitudinal changes in tumour size are then analyzed automatically to assess the local response and detect possible adverse radiation effects (ARE) after SRT. The system was trained and optimized using the data acquired from 96 patients (130 tumours) and evaluated on an independent test set of 20 patients (22 tumours; 95 MRI scans). The comparison between automatic therapy outcome evaluation and manual assessments by expert oncologists demonstrates a good agreement with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 91%, 89%, and 92%, respectively, in detecting local control/failure and 91%, 100%, and 89% in detecting ARE on the independent test set. This study is a step forward towards automatic monitoring and evaluation of radiotherapy outcome in brain tumours that can streamline the radio-oncology workflow substantially.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".