Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty extraction of patient-specific deep learning-based dose predictions in LDR prostate brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. In brachytherapy, deep learning (DL) algorithms have shown the capability of predicting 3D dose volumes. The reliability and accuracy of such methodologies remain under scrutiny for prospective clinical applications. This study aims to establish fast DL-based predictive dose algorithms for low-dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy and to evaluate their uncertainty and stability. Approach. Data from 200 prostate patients, treated with 125 I sources, was collected. The Monte Carlo (MC) ground truth dose volumes were calculated with TOPAS considering the interseed effects and an organ-based material assignment. Two 3D convolutional neural networks, UNet and ResUNet TSE, were trained using the patient geometry and the seed positions as the input data. The dataset was randomly split into training (150), validation (25) and test (25) sets. The aleatoric (associated with the input data) and epistemic (associated with the model) uncertainties of the DL models were assessed. Main results. For the full test set, with respect to the MC reference, the predicted prostate D 90 metric had mean differences of −0.64% and 0.08% for the UNet and ResUNet TSE models, respectively. In voxel-by-voxel comparisons, the average global dose difference ratio in the [−1%, 1%] range included 91.0% and 93.0% of voxels for the UNet and the ResUNet TSE, respectively. One forward pass or prediction took 4 ms for a 3D dose volume of 2.56 M voxels (128 × 160 × 128). The ResUNet TSE model closely encoded the well-known physics of the problem as seen in a set of uncertainty maps. The ResUNet TSE rectum D 2cc had the largest uncertainty metric of 0.0042. Significance. The proposed DL models serve as rapid dose predictors that consider the patient anatomy and interseed attenuation effects. The derived uncertainty is interpretable, highlighting areas where DL models may struggle to provide accurate estimations. The uncertainty analysis offers a comprehensive evaluation tool for dose predictor model assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".