ArticlePloS one2022
Clinical applicability of deep learning-based respiratory signal prediction models for four-dimensional radiation therapy.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fusing Prediction and Perception: Adaptive Kalman Filter-Driven Respiratory Gating for MR Surgical Navigation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting future occlusion or stenosis of lower extremity bypass grafts using artificial intelligence to simultaneously analyze all flow velocities collected in current and previous ultrasound examinations.JVS-vascular science · 2024Article
- A Feasibility Study of Hybrid Deep-Learning Prediction with Online Adaptation of Breathing Irregularities for Long-Term Internal Organ Motion During Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For accurate respiration gated radiation therapy, compensation for the beam latency of the beam control system is necessary. Therefore, we evaluate deep learning models for predicting patient respiration signals and investigate their clinical feasibility. Herein, long short-term memory (LSTM), bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM), and the Transformer are evaluated. Among the 540 respiration signals, 60 signals are used as test data. Each of the remaining 480 signals was spilt into training and validation data in a 7:3 ratio. A total of 1000 ms of the signal sequence (Ts) is entered to the models, and the signal at 500 ms afterward (Pt) is predicted (standard training condition). The accuracy measures are: (1) root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation coefficient (CC), (2) accuracy dependency on Ts and Pt, (3) respiratory pattern dependency, and (4) error for 30% and 70% of the respiration gating for a 5 mm tumor motion for latencies of 300, 500, and 700 ms. Under standard conditions, the Transformer model exhibits the highest accuracy with an RMSE and CC of 0.1554 and 0.9768, respectively. An increase in Ts improves accuracy, whereas an increase in Pt decreases accuracy. An evaluation of the regularity of the respiratory signals reveals that the lowest predictive accuracy is achieved with irregular amplitude patterns. For 30% and 70% of the phases, the average error of the three models is <1.4 mm for a latency of 500 ms and >2.0 mm for a latency of 700 ms. The prediction accuracy of the Transformer is superior to LSTM and Bi-LSTM. Thus, the three models have clinically applicable accuracies for a latency <500 ms for 10 mm of regular tumor motion. The clinical acceptability of the deep learning models depends on the inherent latency and the strategy for reducing the irregularity of respiration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.