Beam field guided diffusion model for liver cancer radiotherapy dose distribution prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep learning has been widely applied to the design of cancer radiotherapy treatment planning for dose distribution prediction. However, the significant variability in tumor size, quantity, and location poses substantial challenges for accurate dose distribution prediction in liver cancer radiotherapy. PURPOSE: Given that the clinical effectiveness and accuracy of the predicted dose distribution directly impact the quality of treatment plans generated by automatic radiotherapy planning methods, this study aims to develop a novel and precise dose prediction method based on diffusion models. METHODS: We propose a beam field (BF) guided diffusion model (BeamDiff) consisting of a forward and a reverse process for liver cancer radiotherapy dose distribution prediction. In the forward process, noise is progressively added to the actual dose distribution map until it transforms into a standard Gaussian noise map. In the reverse process, a noise predictor is used to estimate the noise and iteratively generate the desired dose distribution map. To effectively leverage patient-specific clinical features, we design a multi-branch hybrid encoder to extract features from BF and clinical structural information, with their relationships captured by a designed multi-condition aggregation module (MAM). Given that our inputs consist solely of 2D slices, which inherently lack inter-slice dependencies and similarity features, we integrate the multi-head attention (MHA) module into the encoder to re-establish connections between slices. In the decoder, we design an asymmetric fusion module (AFM) to integrate high-level feature maps from the encoder with low-level ones from the decoder, mitigating information loss caused by downsampling while preserving fine details and contextual information. RESULTS: We evaluate the proposed method on a clinical liver cancer radiotherapy dataset. In terms of prediction accuracy, our model achieves an average Dose score of 1.27 Gy and a DVH score of 0.28 Gy. The mean absolute error (MAE) is 1.97 Gy for the planning target volume (PTV), 2.21 Gy for the liver, 1.14 Gy for the spinal cord, and 1.16 Gy for the stomach. Regarding clinical effectiveness, the predicted results of our method are the closest to meeting clinical requirements across the evaluated metrics. CONCLUSIONS: We develop a method specifically tailored for liver cancer radiotherapy dose prediction. The proposed model demonstrates competitive performance in terms of both prediction accuracy and clinical effectiveness. These results suggest that the method has considerable potential to enhance the efficiency of the radiotherapy workflow.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".