Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35670318›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Machine learning models to predict the delivered positions of Elekta multileaf collimator leaves for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Sruthi Sivabhaskar, Ruiqi Li, Arkajyoti Roy, Neil Kirby, Mohamad Fakhreddine, Nikos Papanikolaou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dosimetric impact of MLC positional errors on dose distribution in IMRT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sruthi SivabhaskarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Ruiqi LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Arkajyoti RoyDepartment of Management Science and Statistics, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Neil KirbyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Mohamad FakhreddineDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Nikos PapanikolaouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USThe University of Texas at San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate positioning of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is essential for accurate treatment delivery. We developed a linear regression, support vector machine, random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and an artificial neural network (ANN) for predicting the delivered leaf positions for VMAT plans.

methodsFor this study, 160 MLC log files from 80 VMAT plans were obtained from a single institution treated on 3 Elekta Versa HD linear accelerators. The gravity vector, X1 and X2 jaw positions, leaf gap, leaf position, leaf velocity, and leaf acceleration were extracted and used as model inputs. The models were trained using 70% of the log files and tested on the remaining 30%. Mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), the coefficient of determination R

resultsThe models achieved the following errors: linear regression (MAE = 0.158 mm, RMSE = 0.225 mm), support vector machine (MAE = 0.141 mm, RMSE = 0.199 mm), random forest (MAE = 0.161 mm, RMSE = 0.229 mm), XGBoost (MAE = 0.185 mm, RMSE = 0.273 mm), and ANN (MAE = 0.361 mm, RMSE = 0.521 mm). A significant correlation between a plan's gamma passing rate (GPR) and the prediction errors of linear regression, support vector machine, and random forest is seen (p < 0.045).

conclusionsWe examined various models to predict the delivered MLC positions for VMAT plans treated with Elekta linacs. Linear regression, support vector machine, random forest, and XGBoost achieved lower errors than ANN. Models that can accurately predict the individual leaf positions during treatment can help identify leaves that are deviating from the planned position, which can improve a plan's GPR.

Indexed as

Machine LearningRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansParticle AcceleratorsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedElektalog filesmachine learningMLC positional deviationsVMAT

Identifiers

PMID35670318
PMCPMC9359011
OpenAlexW4281637799

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.