Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35545078›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2022

Dual-energy CT based mass density and relative stopping power estimation for proton therapy using physics-informed deep learning.

Chih-Wei Chang, Yuan Gao, Tonghe Wang, Yang Lei, Qian Wang, Shaoyan Pan, Atchar Sudhyadhom, Jeffrey D Bradley, Tian Liu, Liyong Lin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Recent advances in applying machine learning to proton radiotherapy.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Deep learning-based Fast Volumetric Image Generation for Image-guided Proton Radiotherapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Chih-Wei ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Yuan GaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Tonghe WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9021-1204
Yang LeiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Qian WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Shaoyan PanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Atchar SudhyadhomDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0397-0884
Jeffrey D BradleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Tian LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Liyong LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Jun ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.
Xiaofeng YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30308, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9023-5855

Funding

eXtended Modular ANthropomorphic (XMAN) phantom for Imaging and Treatment Optimization in Radiotherapy.R01EB032680 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI REN, LEI, YANG, XIAOFENG · 2022 to 2025
$2.4M
Multiparametric MRI-guided Prostate HDR Brachytherapy with Focal Tumor BoostR01CA215718 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI YANG, XIAOFENG · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
A Multimodal Imaging Approach Towards the Reduction of Proton Beam Range UncertaintiesR21EB026086 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SUDHYADHOM, ATCHAR · 2018 to 2020
$594k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215718NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB032680NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB026086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proton therapy requires accurate dose calculation for treatment planning to ensure the conformal doses are precisely delivered to the targets. The conversion of CT numbers to material properties is a significant source of uncertainty for dose calculation. The aim of this study is to develop a physics-informed deep learning (PIDL) framework to derive accurate mass density and relative stopping power maps from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) images. The PIDL framework allows deep learning (DL) models to be trained with a physics loss function, which includes a physics model to constrain DL models. Five DL models were implemented including a fully connected neural network (FCNN), dual-FCNN (DFCNN), and three variants of residual networks (ResNet): ResNet-v1 (RN-v1), ResNet-v2 (RN-v2), and dual-ResNet-v2 (DRN-v2). An artificial neural network (ANN) and the five DL models trained with and without physics loss were explored to evaluate the PIDL framework. Two empirical DECT models were implemented to compare with the PIDL method. DL training data were from CIRS electron density phantom 062M (Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Inc., Norfolk, VA). The performance of DL models was tested by CIRS adult male, adult female, and 5-year-old child anthropomorphic phantoms. For density map inference, the physics-informed RN-v2 was 3.3%, 2.9% and 1.9% more accurate than ANN for the adult male, adult female, and child phantoms. The physics-informed DRN-v2 was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.8% more accurate than DRN-v2 without physics training for the three phantoms, respectfully. The results indicated that physics-informed training could reduce uncertainty when ANN/DL models without physics training were insufficient to capture data structures or derived significant errors. DL models could also achieve better image noise control compared to the empirical DECT parametric mapping methods. The proposed PIDL framework can potentially improve proton range uncertainty by offering accurate material properties conversion from DECT.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProton TherapyChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMalePhantoms, ImagingPhysicsTomography, X-Ray ComputedDECTdeep learningproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID35545078
PMCPMC10410526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.