Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35311133›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Accuracy Improvement Method Based on Characteristic Database Classification for IMRT Dose Prediction in Cervical Cancer: Scientifically Training Data Selection.

Yiru Peng, Yaoying Liu, Zhaocai Chen, Gaolong Zhang, Changsheng Ma, Shouping Xu, Yong Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors.

Yiru PengShandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Yaoying LiuSchool of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Zhaocai ChenManteia Technologies Co., Ltd, Xiamen, China.
Gaolong ZhangSchool of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Changsheng MaShandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Shouping XuNational Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yong YinShandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Consistent training and testing datasets can lead to good performance for deep learning (DL) models. However, a large high-quality training dataset for unusual clinical scenarios is usually not easy to collect. The work aims to find optimal training data collection strategies for DL-based dose prediction models. Materials and Methods: A total of 325 clinically approved cervical IMRT plans were utilized. We designed comparison experiments to investigate the impact of (1) beam angles, (2) the number of beams, and (3) patient position for DL dose prediction models. In addition, a novel geometry-based beam mask generation method was proposed to provide beam setting information in the model training process. What is more, we proposed a new training strategy named "full-database pre-trained strategy". Results: The model trained with a homogeneous dataset with the same beam settings achieved the best performance [mean prediction errors of planning target volume (PTV), bladder, and rectum: 0.29 ± 0.15%, 3.1 ± 2.55%, and 3.15 ± 1.69%] compared with that trained with large mixed beam setting plans (mean errors of PTV, bladder, and rectum: 0.8 ± 0.14%, 5.03 ± 2.2%, and 4.45 ± 1.4%). A homogeneous dataset is more accessible to train an accurate dose prediction model (mean errors of PTV, bladder and rectum: 2.2 ± 0.15%, 5 ± 2.1%, and 3.23 ± 1.53%) than a non-homogeneous one (mean errors of PTV, bladder and rectum: 2.55 ± 0.12%, 6.33 ± 2.46%, and 4.76 ± 2.91%) without other processing approaches. The added beam mask can constantly improve the model performance, especially for datasets with different beam settings (mean errors of PTV, bladder, and rectum improved from 0.8 ± 0.14%, 5.03 ± 2.2%, and 4.45 ± 1.4% to 0.29 ± 0.15%, 3.1 ± 2.55%, and 3.15 ± 1.69%). Conclusions: A consistent dataset is recommended to form a patient-specific IMRT dose prediction model. When a consistent dataset is not accessible to collect, a large dataset with different beam angles and a training model with beam information can also get a relatively good model. The full-database pre-trained strategies can rapidly form an accuracy model from a pre-trained model. The proposed beam mask can effectively improve the model performance. Our study may be helpful for further dose prediction studies in terms of training strategies or database establishment.

Indexed as

cervical cancerdatabase classificationdeep learningdose predictionIMRTradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35311133
PMCPMC8927290

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.