Deep evidential learning for radiotherapy dose prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As we navigate towards integrating deep learning methods in the real clinic, a safety concern lies in whether and how the model can express its own uncertainty when making predictions. In this work, we present a novel application of an uncertainty-quantification framework called Deep Evidential Learning in the domain of radiotherapy dose prediction. METHOD: Using medical images of the Open Knowledge-Based Planning Challenge dataset, we found that this model can be effectively harnessed to yield uncertainty estimates that inherited correlations with prediction errors upon completion of network training. This was achieved only after reformulating the original loss function for a stable implementation. RESULTS: We found that (i) epistemic uncertainty was highly correlated with prediction errors, with various association indices comparable or stronger than those for Monte-Carlo Dropout and Deep Ensemble methods, (ii) the median error varied with uncertainty threshold much more linearly for epistemic uncertainty in Deep Evidential Learning relative to these other two conventional frameworks, indicative of a more uniformly calibrated sensitivity to model errors, (iii) relative to epistemic uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty demonstrated a more significant shift in its distribution in response to Gaussian noise added to CT intensity, compatible with its interpretation as reflecting data noise. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our results suggest that Deep Evidential Learning is a promising approach that can endow deep-learning models in radiotherapy dose prediction with statistical robustness. We have also demonstrated how this framework leads to uncertainty heatmaps that correlate strongly with model errors, and how it can be used to equip the predicted Dose-Volume-Histograms with confidence intervals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".