MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362693902 · doi:10.1117/12.2652984

Predicting the dose distribution of multi-lesion lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy plans using generative adversarial networks

2023· article· en· W4362693902 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Wang, Jonatan Snir, Jaron Chong, Sarah A. Mattonen, Pencilla Lang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelRadiation therapyMedicineRadiation treatment planningAblative caseNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) delivers a high dose of radiation to a small area and is frequently used to treat cancer patients with metastatic lesions in the lung. Selecting the appropriate prescription is a balance of delivering enough radiation to lesions to prevent recurrence, and minimizing the radiation delivered to organs at risk (OARs) to limit side effects. After a radiation oncologist (RO) selects a prescription, treatment planning software is used to create the dose distribution, and calculate radiation delivered to the lesions and OARs. If dose constraints are not met, a different prescription must be selected, and the process is repeated. Planning SABR treatments is resource intensive, and repeated iterations can lead to treatment delays. Recently, machine learning techniques have been used to create a dose distribution for a given SABR prescription. Thus far, these techniques only target single lesions and are not commonly implemented clinically. In this work, we create a conditional generative adversarial network (GAN) with a U-NET backbone to estimate the dose distribution of SABR treatments to 2-6 lesions in the lung. The GAN is conditioned on contours of the OARs and lesions, CT images, and an initial dose estimation. A novel loss function is used during training. Through the mean squared error and dose metrics used by ROs, the output of the GAN demonstrates good agreement with the ground truth dose. The model will allow ROs to efficiently compare prescriptions options, reduce departmental workload by the multidisciplinary team, and circumvent treatment delivery delays for patients.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→