MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406980788 · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2025.100705

Towards faster plan adaptation for proton arc therapy using initial treatment plan information

2025· article· en· W4406980788 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Roberfroid, Margerie Huet Dastarac, Elena Borderías Villarroel, Rodin Koffeing, John A. Lee, Ana María Barragán Montero, Edmond Sterpin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersFédération Wallonie-BruxellesFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)Computer scienceProton therapyProcess managementPsychologyMedicineBusinessNeuroscienceGeographyInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging modality delivering continuously rotating proton beams. Current PAT planning approaches are time-consuming, making them unsuitable for online adaptation. This study proposes an accelerated workflow for adapting PAT plans. Materials and Methods The proposed workflow transfers spots from initial computed tomography (CT) to the CT of the day, updates energy layers considering the initial pattern, and re-optimizes selected transferred spots based on their initial weights and impact on the objective function. A retrospective study was conducted on five head and neck patients who underwent plan adaptation on a repeated CT. PAT plans were generated with two different methods on the repeated CT: reference , created de novo, and smart-adapted , generated with the proposed adaptive workflow. Robust optimization was performed for all plans. Results Smart-adapted plans achieved similar mean dose to organs at risk as the reference : the largest median increase of mean dose was 1.9 Gy to the mandible; the median of maximum dose to spinal cord was 0.5 Gy lower for the smart-adapted plans. The median target coverage, i.e. D 98 , to primary tumor and nodes of smart-adapted plans decreased by 0.2 and 0.4 Gy for the nominal case, and 0.4 and 0.6 Gy for the worst-case scenario; all smart-adapted plans met clinical objectives. The smart-adaptation method reduced average planning time from 19184 s to 5626 s, a 3.4-fold improvement. Conclusions Smart-adapted plans achieve similar plan quality to the reference method, while significantly reducing plan generation time for new patient anatomy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics and Imaging in Radiation OncologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207