A Prospective Study of Machine Learning-Assisted Radiation Therapy Planning for Patients Receiving 54 Gy to the Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The capacity for machine learning (ML) to facilitate radiation therapy (RT) planning for primary brain tumors has not been described. We evaluated ML-assisted RT planning with regard to clinical acceptability, dosimetric outcomes, and planning efficiency for adults and children with primary brain tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this prospective study, children and adults receiving 54 Gy fractionated RT for a primary brain tumor were enrolled. For each patient, one ML-assisted RT plan was created and compared with 1 or 2 plans created using standard ("manual") planning procedures. Plans were evaluated by the treating oncologist, who was blinded to the method of plan creation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of ML plans that were clinically acceptable for treatment. Secondary endpoints included the frequency with which ML plans were selected as preferable for treatment, and dosimetric differences between ML and manual plans. RESULTS: A total of 116 manual plans and 61 ML plans were evaluated across 61 patients. Ninety-four percent of ML plans and 93% of manual plans were judged to be clinically acceptable (P = 1.0). Overall, the quality of ML plans was similar to manual plans. ML plans comprised 34.5% of all plans evaluated and were selected for treatment in 36.1% of cases (P = .82). Similar tumor target coverage was achieved between both planning methods. Normal brain (brain minus planning target volume) received an average of 1 Gy less mean dose with ML plans (compared with manual plans, P < .001). ML plans required an average of 45.8 minutes less time to create, compared with manual plans (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ML-assisted automated planning creates high-quality plans for patients with brain tumors, including children. Plans created with ML assistance delivered slightly less dose to normal brain tissues and can be designed in less time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".