Development and validation of an MR-driven dose-of-the-day procedure for online adaptive radiotherapy in upper gastrointestinal cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. To develop and validate a dose-of-the-day (DOTD) treatment plan verification procedure for liver and pancreas cancer patients treated with an magnetic resonance (MR)-Linac system. Approach. DOTD was implemented as an automated process that uses 3D datasets collected during treatment delivery. Particularly, the DOTD pipeline’s input included the adapt-to-shape (ATS) plan—i.e. 3D-MR dataset acquired at beginning of online session, anatomical contours, dose distribution—and 3D-MR dataset acquired during beam-on (BON). The DOTD automated analysis included (a) ATS-to-BON image intensity-based deformable image registration (DIR), (b) ATS-to-BON contours mapping via DIR, (c) BON-to-ATS contours copying through rigid registration, (d) determining ATS-to-BON dosimetric differences, and (e) PDF report generation. The DIR process was validated by two expert reviewers. ATS-plans were recomputed on BON datasets to assess dose differences. DOTD analysis was performed retrospectively for 75 treatment fractions (12-liver and 5-pancreas patients). Main results. The accuracy of DOTD process relied on DIR and mapped contours quality. Most DIR-generated contours (99.6%) were clinically acceptable. DICE correlated with depreciation of DIR-based region of interest mapping process. The ATS-BON plan difference was found negligible (<1%). The duodenum and large bowel exhibited highest variations, 24% and 39% from fractional values, for 5-fraction liver and pancreas. For liver 1-fraction, a 62% variation was observed for duodenum. Significance. The DOTD methodology provides an automated approach to quantify 3D dosimetric differences between online plans and their delivery. This analysis offers promise as a valuable tool for plan quality assessment and decision-making in the verification stage of the online workflow.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".