MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405763674 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(24)00243-7

A prospectively deployed deep learning-enabled automated quality assurance tool for oncological palliative spine radiation therapy

2024· article· en· W4405763674 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher E. Kehayias, Dennis Bontempi, Sarah Quirk, Scott Friesen, Jeremy S. Bredfeldt, T.K. Kosak, M. Kearney, Roy B. Tishler, Itai Pashtan, Mai Anh Huynh, Hugo J.W.L. Aerts, Raymond H. Mak, Christian V. Guthier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceMedicineMedical physicsRadiation therapyRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Palliative spine radiation therapy is prone to treatment at the wrong anatomic level. We developed a fully automated deep learning-based spine-targeting quality assurance system (DL-SpiQA) for detecting treatment at the wrong anatomic level. DL-SpiQA was evaluated based on retrospective testing of spine radiation therapy treatments and prospective clinical deployment. METHODS: The DL-SpiQA workflow involves auto-segmentation and labelling of all vertebral volumes on CT imaging using TotalSegmentator, an open-source deep learning algorithm based on nnU-Net, calculation of the radiation dose to each vertebra, and flagging and categorisation of potential treatments at the wrong anatomic level with automated email reports sent to involved radiation therapy personnel. We developed the DL-SpiQA tool based on retrospective clinical data from patients treated with palliative spine radiation therapy from sites included in the multicentre hospital network between Feb 12, 2014, and Nov 15, 2022. We used historic cases of patients who had a near-miss (ie, wrong-anatomic-level errors caught before the patient was treated) or had received wrong-anatomic-level treatment to test whether the tool could identify known errors successfully. We then used the tool prospectively over 15 months (April 24, 2023, to July 22, 2024) to evaluate any new spine radiation therapy treatment plan created for a patient, looking for any targeting errors, and dose and volume discrepancies. An email report was circulated with all the radiation therapy personnel; if any errors were found, these were highlighted and each error was defined. The tool was internally validated. All cases flagged by DL-SpiQA for both the retrospective and prospective studies were manually reviewed for dosimetric targeting, variant spine anatomy or spinal anomalies, and artificial intelligence (AI) segmentation errors. DL-SpiQA was further validated based on false positive and negative rates estimated from the retrospective results. FINDINGS: DL-SpiQA was first tested retrospectively on 513 patients with segmentation of 10 106 vertebrae. The system raised flags for ten dose discrepancies, 49 normal anatomic variants, 49 cases with implants or other anomalies, and 20 segmentation errors (4% false positive rate). DL-SpiQA caught one historic treatment at the wrong anatomic level and three near-misses. DL-SpiQA was then prospectively deployed, reviewing 520 cases and identifying six documentation errors, which triggered detailed review by clinicians, and 43 additional cases, which confirmed clinical knowledge of variant anatomy. In all detected cases (ie, 49 of 520 cases in total), the appropriate personnel were alerted. A false negative rate of 0·03% is estimated based on the 4% AI segmentation error rate and the frequency of reported spine radiation therapy errors. INTERPRETATION: The low false positive rate, the low false negative rate, and the high accuracy in flagging errors show that DL-SpiQA is an effective, AI-driven, automated quality assurance tool that could be used to identify anatomic spine variants and errors in targeting at the anatomic level. The tool could therefore help improve the safety of spine radiotherapy. Further external validation and tailoring is needed. FUNDING: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207