Patient-Specific Hyperparameter Optimization of a Deep Learning-Based Tumor Autocontouring Algorithm on 2D Liver, Prostate, and Lung Cine MR Images: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear accelerator–magnetic resonance (linac-MR) hybrid systems allow for real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy for more accurate dose delivery to the tumor and improved sparing of the adjacent healthy tissues. However, for real-time tumor detection, it is unfeasible for a human expert to manually contour (gold standard) the tumor at the fast imaging rate of a linac-MR. This study aims to develop a neural network-based tumor autocontouring algorithm with patient-specific hyperparameter optimization (HPO) and to validate its contouring accuracy using in vivo MR images of cancer patients. Two-dimensional (2D) intrafractional MR images were acquired at 4 frames/s using 3 tesla (T) MRI from 11 liver, 24 prostate, and 12 lung cancer patients. A U-Net architecture was applied for tumor autocontouring and was further enhanced by implementing HPO using the Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy. Six hyperparameters were optimized for each patient, for which intrafractional images and experts’ manual contours were input into the algorithm to find the optimal set of hyperparameters. For evaluation, Dice’s coefficient (DC), centroid displacement (CD), and Hausdorff distance (HD) were computed between the manual contours and autocontours. The performance of the algorithm was benchmarked against two standardized autosegmentation methods: non-optimized U-Net and nnU-Net. For the proposed algorithm, the mean (standard deviation) DC, CD, and HD of the 47 patients were 0.92 (0.04), 1.35 (1.03), and 3.63 (2.17) mm, respectively. Compared to the two benchmarking autosegmentation methods, the proposed algorithm achieved the best overall performance in terms of contouring accuracy and speed. This work presents the first tumor autocontouring algorithm applicable to the intrafractional MR images of liver and prostate cancer patients for real-time tumor-tracked radiotherapy. The proposed algorithm performs patient-specific HPO, enabling accurate tumor delineation comparable to that of experts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".