Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35174065›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Comprehensive Output Estimation of Double Scattering Proton System With Analytical and Machine Learning Models.

Jiahua Zhu, Taoran Cui, Yin Zhang, Yang Zhang, Chi Ma, Bo Liu, Ke Nie, Ning J Yue, Xiao Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jiahua ZhuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Taoran CuiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Yin ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Chi MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Bo LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Ke NieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Ning J YueDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Xiao WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe beam output of a double scattering proton system varies for each combination of beam option, range, and modulation and therefore is difficult to be accurately modeled by the treatment planning system (TPS). This study aims to design an empirical method using the analytical and machine learning (ML) models to estimate proton output in a double scattering proton system. MATERIALS AND

methodsThree analytical models using polynomial, linear, and logarithm-polynomial equations were generated on a training dataset consisting of 1,544 clinical measurements to estimate proton output for each option. Meanwhile, three ML models using Gaussian process regression (GPR) with exponential kernel, squared exponential kernel, and rational quadratic kernel were also created for all options combined. The accuracy of each model was validated against 241 additional clinical measurements as the testing dataset. Two most robust models were selected, and the minimum number of samples needed for either model to achieve sufficient accuracy ( ± 3%) was determined by evaluating the mean average percentage error (MAPE) with increasing sample number. The differences between the estimated outputs using the two models were also compared for 1,000 proton beams with a randomly generated range, and modulation for each option.

resultsThe polynomial model and the ML GPR model with exponential kernel yielded the most accurate estimations with less than 3% deviation from the measured outputs. At least 20 samples of each option were needed to build the polynomial model with less than 1% MAPE, whereas at least a total of 400 samples were needed for all beam options to build the ML GPR model with exponential kernel to achieve comparable accuracy. The two independent models agreed with less than 2% deviation using the testing dataset.

conclusionThe polynomial model and the ML GPR model with exponential kernel were built for proton output estimation with less than 3% deviations from the measurements. They can be used as an independent output prediction tool for a double scattering proton beam and a secondary output check tool for a cross check between themselves.

Indexed as

analytical modeldouble scattering proton systemGaussian process regressionmachine learningoutput model

Identifiers

PMID35174065
PMCPMC8841866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.