ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Improvement of deep learning prediction model in patient-specific QA for VMAT with MLC leaf position map and patient's dose distribution.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- General versus site specific quantile random forest models for virtual patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Prediction of patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy using machine log files.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Prediction of VMAT gamma passing rates using 3D CNNs based on leaf position analysis and gradient class activation mapping for plan complexity evaluation.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Predicting patient-specific quality assurance outcomes in helical tomotherapy using plan complexity and 3D dose-distribution radiomics.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of deep learning models for estimating the organ at-risk dose constraint from two-dimensional cine magnetic resonance imaging scans during irradiation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Assessing knowledge about medical physics in language-generative AI with large language model: using the medical physicist exam.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence for machine- and patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy: current status and future directions.Journal of radiation research · 2024Review
- Assessment of the deep learning-based gamma passing rate prediction system for 1.5 T magnetic resonance-guided linear accelerator.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Improvement of deep learning prediction model in patient-specific QA for VMAT with MLC leaf position map and patient's dose distribution.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeep learning-based virtual patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is a novel technique that enables patient QA without measurement. However, this method could be improved by further evaluating the optimal data to be used as input. Therefore, a deep learning-based model that uses multileaf collimator (MLC) information per control point and dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs was developed.
methodsOverall, 96 volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans generated for prostate cancer treatment were used. We developed a model (Model 1) that can predict measurement-based gamma passing rate (GPR) for a treatment plan using data stored as a map reflecting the MLC leaf position at each control point (MLPM) and data of the dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs. The evaluation of the model was based on the mean absolute error (MAE) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between the measured and predicted GPR. For comparison, we also analyzed models trained with the dose distribution in patient's CT alone (Model 2) and with dose distributions recalculated on a virtual phantom CT (Model 3).
resultsAt the 2%/2 mm criterion, MAE[%] and r for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were 2.32% ± 0.43% and 0.54 ± 0.03, 2.70% ± 0.26%, and 0.32 ± 0.08, and 2.96% ± 0.23% and 0.24 ± 0.22, respectively; at the 3%/3 mm criterion, these values were 1.25% ± 0.05% and 0.36 ± 0.18, 1.57% ± 0.35% and 0.19 ± 0.20, and 1.39% ± 0.32% and 0.17 ± 0.22, respectively. This result showed that Model 1 exhibited the lowest MAE and highest r at both criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%3 mm.
conclusionsThese findings showed that a model that combines the MLPM and dose distribution in patient's CT exhibited a better GPR prediction performance compared with the other two studied models.
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.