Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39144260›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2024

Forecasting model for qualitative prediction of the results of patient-specific quality assurance based on planning and complexity metrics and their interrelations. Pilot study.

Tomasz Piotrowski, Adam Ryczkowski, Petros Kalendralis, Marcin Adamczewski, Piotr Sadowski, Barbara Bajon, Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska, Agata Jodda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Prehabilitation approaches for gastrointestinal cancer surgery: a narrative review.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Review
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

8 authors.

Tomasz PiotrowskiDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Adam RyczkowskiDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Petros KalendralisDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marcin AdamczewskiDepartment of Biomedical Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.
Piotr SadowskiDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Barbara BajonDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Marta Kruszyna-MochalskaDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Agata JoddaDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The purpose was to analyse the interrelations between planning and complexity metrics and gamma passing rates (GPRs) obtained from VMAT treatments and build the forecasting models for qualitative prediction (QD) of GPRs results. Materials and method: 802 treatment arcs from the plans prepared for the head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvic cancers were analysed. The plans were verified by portal dosimetry and analysed twice using the gamma method with 3%|2mm and 2%|2mm acceptance criteria. The tolerance limit of GPR was 95%. Red, yellow, and green QDs were established for GPR examination. The interrelations were examined, as well as the analysis of effective differentiation of QD. Three models for QD forecasting based on discriminant analysis (DA), random decision forest (RDF) methods, and the hybrid model (HM) were built and evaluated. Results: Most of the interrelations were small or moderate. The exception is correlations of the join function with the average number of monitor units per control point (R = 0.893) and the beam aperture with planning target volume (R = 0.897). While many metrics allow for the effective separation of the QDs from each other, the study shows that predicting the values of the QD is possible only through multi-component forecasting models, of which the HM is the most accurate (0.894). Conclusion: Of the three models explored in this study, the HM, which uses DA methods to predict red QD and RDF methods to predict green and yellow QDs, is the most promising one.

Indexed as

complexityforecasting modelsmachine learningplan metricsPSQA

Identifiers

PMID39144260
PMCPMC11321782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.