ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Determining the library size for the optimal output plan in the RapidPlan knowledge-based planning system using multicriteria optimization.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated evaluation of organ sparing in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy using dose-gradient metrics.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the number of trade-off explored (TO) library plans required for building a RapidPlan (RP) library that would generate the optimal clinical treatment plan.
methodsWe developed 2 RP models, 1 each for the 2 clinical sites, head and neck (HN) and cervix. The models were created using 100 plans and were validated using 70 plans (VP) for each site respectively. Each of the 2 libraries comprising 100 TO plans was divided into 5 different subsets of library plans comprising 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 plans, leading to 5 different RP models for each site. For every validation patient, a TO plan (TO_VP) was created. For every patient, 5 RP plans were automatically generated using RP models. The dosimetric parameters of the 6 plans (TO_VP + 5 RP plans) were compared using Pearson correlation and Greenhouse-Geisser analysis.
resultsPlanning target volume (PTV) dose volume parameters PTVD95% in 6 competing plans varied between 97.6 ± 0.7% and 98.1 ± 0.6% in HN cases and 98.8 ± 0.3% and 99.0 ± 0.4% in cervix cases. Overall, for both sites, the mean variations in organ at risk (OAR) doses or volumes were within 50 cGy, 0.5%, and 0.2 cc between library plans, and if TO_VP was included the variations deteriorated to 180 cGy, 0.4%, and 15 cc. All OARs in both sites, except D0.1 ccspine, showed a statistically insignificant variation between all plans.
conclusionsDosimetric variation among various output plans generated from 5 RP libraries is minimal and clinically insignificant. The optimal output plan can be derived from the least-weighted library consisting of 20 plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article shows that, when the constituent plans are subjected to trade-off exploration, the number of constituent plans for a knowledge-based planning module is not relevant in terms of its dosimetric output.
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.