Knowledge‐based planning for Gamma Knife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current methods for Gamma Knife (GK) treatment planning utilizes either manual forward planning, where planners manually place shots in a tumor to achieve a desired dose distribution, or inverse planning, whereby the dose delivered to a tumor is optimized for multiple objectives based on established metrics. For other treatment modalities like IMRT and VMAT, there has been a recent push to develop knowledge-based planning (KBP) pipelines to address the limitations presented by forward and inverse planning. However, no complete KBP pipeline has been created for GK. PURPOSE: To develop a novel (KBP) pipeline, using inverse optimization (IO) with 3D dose predictions for GK. METHODS: Data were obtained for 349 patients from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. A 3D dose prediction model was trained using 322 patients, based on a previously published deep learning methodology, and dose predictions were generated for the remaining 27 out-of-sample patients. A generalized IO model was developed to learn objective function weights from dose predictions. These weights were then used in an inverse planning model to generate deliverable treatment plans. A dose mimicking (DM) model was also implemented for comparison. The quality of the resulting plans was compared to their clinical counterparts using standard GK quality metrics. The performance of the models was also characterized with respect to the dose predictions. RESULTS: 1.123 for the clinical plans. IO plans also performed better than DM plans for five of the six quality metrics. Plans generated using IO also have average treatment times comparable to that of clinical plans. With regards to the dose predictions, predictions with higher conformity tend to result in higher quality KBP plans. CONCLUSIONS: Plans resulting from an IO KBP pipeline are, on average, of equal or superior quality compared to those obtained through manual planning. The results demonstrate the potential for the use of KBP to generate GK treatment with minimal human intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".