ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Combining autoencoder with clustering analysis for anomaly detection in radiotherapy plans.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying aperture-based intensity map in automated plan review of volumetric modulated arc therapy for lung cancer patients.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Unsupervised machine learning model for detecting anomalous volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for lung cancer patients.Frontiers in big data · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Frameworks to Detect and Investigate the Pathophysiology of Spaceflight Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome (SANS).Brain sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To develop an unsupervised anomaly detection method to identify suspicious error-prone treatment plans in radiotherapy. Methods: A total of 577 treatment plans of breast cancer patients were used in this study. They were labeled as either normal or abnormal plans by experienced clinicians. Multiple features of each plan were extracted and selected by the learning algorithms. The training set consisted of feature samples from 400 normal plans and the testing set consisted of feature samples from 158 normal plans and 19 abnormal plans. Using the k-means clustering algorithm in the training stage, 4 normal plan clusters were formed. The distance between the samples in the testing set and the cluster centers were then determined. To evaluate the effect of dimensionality reduction (DR) on detection accuracy, principal component analysis (PCA) and autoencoder (AE) methods were compared. Results: The sensitivity of the anomaly detection model based on PCA and AE methods were 84.2% (16/19) and 94.7% (18/19), respectively. The specificity of the anomaly detection model based on PCA and AE methods were 64.6% (102/158) and 69.0% (109/158), respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUCs) based on PCA and AE methods were 0.81 and 0.90, respectively. Conclusions: The unsupervised learning method was effective for detecting anomalies from the feature samples. Accuracy could be improved with the introduction of AE-based DR technique. The combination of AE and k-means clustering methods provides an automated way to identify abnormal plans among clinical treatment plans in radiotherapy.
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.