Automated plan generation for prostate radiotherapy patients using deep learning and scripted optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Treatment planning is a time-intensive task that could be automated. We aimed to develop a "single-click" workflow, fully deployed within a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), for autoplanning prostate radiotherapy treatment plans using predictions from a deep learning model (DLM). Materials and Methods: Automatically generated treatment plans were created with a single script, executed from within a commercial TPS scripting environment, that performed two stages sequentially. Initially, a 3D dose distribution was predicted with a ResUNet DLM. The DLM was trained and validated using previously treated datasets (n = 120) which used 3D contours as inputs. Following this, dose predictions were converted into treatment plans by extracting dose-volume metrics from the predictions to use as objectives for the inverse optimizer within the TPS. An independent test dataset (n = 20) was used to evaluate the similarity between automated and clinical plans. Results: . Bladder and rectum volume-at-dose objectives agreed within -6.1% [(-12.5)-0.9%]. The conversion of the DLM prediction into a treatment plan took 15 min [13-16 min]. Conclusions: An automatic plan generation workflow that uses a DL model with scripted optimization was fully deployed in a commercial TPS. Autoplans were compared to previously treated clinical plans and were found to be non-inferior.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".