MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dose Aware Toxicity Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Using a Deformable 3D CNN on Daily CBCT Acquisitions

2024· article· en· W4401751151 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Hénique, Chulmin Bang, Daniel Markel, William Le, Edith Filion, Phuc Felix Ngyuen-Tan, Houda Bahig, Samuel Kadoury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHead and neck cancerHead and neckComputer scienceToxicityMedicineRadiologyRadiation therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent advancements in intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image guidance for cancer treatment, there is growing interest in Deep Learning-based Adaptive Radiotherapy due to its potential to mitigate radiation toxicity. During the course of treatment, daily acquisitions of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows to monitor significant anatomical changes around the tumour target area and the response to treatment. Previous works have demonstrated the benefits of using anatomical deformation features as predictors of early toxicities. The objective of this work is to investigate the use of radiomic distributions to predict early reactive na-sogastric tubing (NG tube), radionecrosis and broad hospitalisation based on initial dosimetry plans. We propose a method combining inter-fractional anatomical deformation, dosimetry and clinical information to improve the prediction performance. For this work we implement a deformable registration pipeline and train a 3D convo-lutional neural network model on the Jacobian determinants of the deformation vector fields between different fractions of treatment. We exploit the dose plans as feature maps to focus the attention of the network on areas susceptible to radiation toxicity. We obtain balanced accuracy scores of 75.4% for radionecrosis at fraction 20,61.1% for hospitalisation after the first week of treatment and 74.1% for NG tube insertion after the 5<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">th</sup> week.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207