Development of a machine learning tool to predict deep inspiration breath hold requirement for locoregional right-sided breast radiation therapy patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and purpose . This study presents machine learning (ML) models that predict if deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) is needed based on lung dose in right-sided breast cancer patients during the initial computed tomography (CT) appointment. Materials and methods . Anatomic distances were extracted from a single-institution dataset of free breathing (FB) CT scans from locoregional right-sided breast cancer patients. Models were developed using combinations of anatomic distances and ML classification algorithms (gradient boosting, k-nearest neighbors, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine) and optimized over 100 iterations using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Models were grouped by the number of anatomic distances used during development; those with the highest validation accuracy were selected as final models. Final models were compared based on their predictive ability, measurement collection efficiency, and robustness to simulated user error during measurement collection. Results . This retrospective study included 238 patients treated between 2016 and 2021. Model development ended once eight anatomic distances were included, and the validation accuracy plateaued. The best performing model used logistic regression with four anatomic distances achieving 80.5% average testing accuracy, with minimal false negatives and positives (<27%). The anatomic distances required for prediction were collected within 3 min and were robust to simulated user error during measurement collection, changing accuracy by <5%. Conclusion . Our logistic regression model using four anatomic distances provided the best balance between efficiency, robustness, and ability to predict if DIBH was needed for locoregional right-sided breast cancer patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".