Multi-task learning for automated contouring and dose prediction in radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Deep learning (DL)-based automated contouring and treatment planning has been proven to improve the efficiency and accuracy of radiotherapy. However, conventional radiotherapy treatment planning process has the automated contouring and treatment planning as separate tasks. Moreover in DL, the contouring and dose prediction tasks for automated treatment planning are done independently. Approach. In this study, we applied the multi-task learning (MTL) approach in order to seamlessly integrate automated contouring and voxel-based dose prediction tasks, as MTL can leverage common information between the two tasks and be able to increase the efficiency of the automated tasks. We developed our MTL framework using the two datasets: in-house prostate cancer dataset and the publicly available head and neck cancer dataset, OpenKBP. Main results. Compared to the sequential DL contouring and treatment planning tasks, our proposed method using MTL improved the mean absolute difference of dose volume histogram metrics of prostate and head and neck sites by 19.82% and 16.33%, respectively. Our MTL model for automated contouring and dose prediction tasks demonstrated enhanced dose prediction performance while maintaining or sometimes even improving the contouring accuracy. Compared to the baseline automated contouring model with the Dice score coefficients of 0.818 for prostate and 0.674 for head and neck datasets, our MTL approach achieved average scores of 0.824 and 0.716 for these datasets, respectively. Significance. Our study highlights the potential of the proposed automated contouring and planning using MTL to support the development of efficient and accurate automated treatment planning for radiotherapy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".