More than one way to skin a dose volume: the impact of dose-surface map calculation approach on study reproducibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Dose-surface maps (DSMs) provide spatial representations of the radiation dose to organ surfaces during radiotherapy and are a valuable tool for identifying dose deposition patterns that are predictive of radiation toxicities. Over the years, many different DSM calculation approaches have been introduced and used in dose-outcome studies. However, little consideration has been given to how these calculation approaches may be impacting the reproducibility of studies in the field. Therefore, we conducted an investigation to determine the level of equivalence of DSMs calculated with different approaches and their subsequent impact on study results. Approach. Rectum and bladder DSMs were calculated for 20 prostate radiotherapy patients using combinations of the most common slice orientation and spacing styles in the literature. Equivalence of differently calculated DSMs was evaluated using pixel-wise comparisons and DSM features (rectum only). Finally, mock cohort comparison studies were conducted with DSMs calculated using each approach to determine the level of dosimetric study reproducibility between calculation approaches. Main results. We found that rectum DSMs calculated using the planar and non-coplanar orientation styles were non-equivalent in the posterior rectal region and that equivalence of DSMs calculated with different slice spacing styles was conditional on the choice of inter-slice distance used. DSM features were highly sensitive to choice of slice orientation style and DSM sampling resolution. Finally, while general result trends were consistent between the comparison studies performed using different DSMs, statisitically significant subregions and features could vary greatly in position and magnitude. Significance. We have determined that DSMs calculated with different calculation approaches are frequently non-equivalent and can lead to differing conclusions between studies performed using the same dataset. We recommend that the DSM research community work to establish consensus calculation approaches to ensure reproducibility within the field.
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 | 0.103 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".