Automatic plan selection using deep network—A prostate study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recently, high‐dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment plans generation was improved with the development of multicriteria optimization (MCO) algorithms that can generate thousands of pareto optimal plans within seconds. This brings a shift, from the objective of generating an acceptable plan to choosing the best plans out of thousands. Purpose In order to choose the best plans, new criteria beyond usual dosimetrics volumes histogram (DVH) metrics are introduced and a deep learning (DL) framework is added as an automatic plan selection algorithm. Methods The new criteria are visual‐like criteria implemented for the bladder, rectum, and urethra. One criterion also takes into account the cold spot in the prostate. Those criteria, along with commonly used DVH criteria, are used to form classes on which to train the algorithm. The algorithm is trained with an input of two 3D images, dose and mask of the anatomy, in order to rank and automatically select a plan. The confidence in the output is used for ranking and the automatic plan selection. The algorithm is trained on 835 previously treated prostate cancer patients and evaluated on a separated 20 patients cohort previously evaluated by two experts (clinical medical physicists) in an inter‐observer MCO study. Results The deep network takes 10 s to rank 2000 plans (vs. 5–10 min for experts to rank 4 preferred plans). A total of four different networks are trained which offer different trade‐offs. The key trade‐offs are the target coverage or the organs at risk (OAR) sparing. The algorithm with the best network achieves no statistical difference with the plans chosen by the two experts for 6 and 9 criteria, respectively, out of 13 criteria (paired t ‐test with p 0.05) while the two experts have no statistical difference between them for 7 criteria. Conclusions The developed approach is flexible since it allows the modification or addition of criteria to obtain different trade‐offs in plan quality, per the institution standard. The approach is fast and robust while adding negligible time to MCO planning. These results demonstrate potential for clinical use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".