Treatment Planning Methods for Dose Painting by Numbers Treatment in Gamma Knife Radiosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Dose painting radiation therapy delivers a nonuniform dose to tumors to account for heterogeneous radiosensitivity. With recent and ongoing development of Gamma Knife machines making large-volume brain tumor treatments more practical, it is increasingly feasible to deliver dose painting treatments. The increased prescription complexity means automated treatment planning is greatly beneficial, and the impact of dose painting on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plan quality has not yet been studied. This research investigates the plan quality achievable for Gamma Knife SRS dose painting treatments when using optimization techniques and automated isocenter placement in treatment planning. Methods and Materials: Dose painting prescription functions with varying parameters were applied to convert voxel image intensities to prescriptions for 10 sample cases. To study achievable plan quality and optimization, clinically placed isocenters were used with each dose painting prescription and optimized using a semi-infinite linear programming formulation. To study automated isocenter placement, a grassfire sphere-packing algorithm and a clinically available Leksell gamma plan isocenter fill algorithm were used. Plan quality for each optimized treatment plan was measured with dose painting SRS metrics. Results: Optimization can be used to find high quality dose painting plans, and plan quality is affected by the dose painting prescription method. Polynomial function prescriptions show more achievable plan quality than sigmoid function prescriptions even with high mean dose boost. Automated isocenter placement is shown as a feasible method for dose painting SRS treatment, and increasing the number of isocenters improves plan quality. The computational solve time for optimization is within 5 minutes in most cases, which is suitable for clinical planning. Conclusions: The impact of dose painting prescription method on achievable plan quality is quantified in this study. Optimization and automated isocenter placement are shown as possible treatment planning methods to obtain high quality plans.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".