ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A feasibility study of deep learning prediction model for VMAT patient-specific QA.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Fast fourier transform based spectral features for machine learning prediction of gamma passing rates in virtual VMAT PSQA: A feasibility study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- The complementary roles of oversight, education, and collaboration in the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in radiation medicine: White paper of CADRA.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Elekta MLC Motion with Dosimetric Validation for Virtual Patient-Specific QA.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A pathway away from measurement-based patient-specific QA: A review of contemporary quality assurance for external-beam radiotherapy sub-systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
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
Purpose: This study introduces a deep learning (DL) model that leverages doses calculated from both a treatment planning system (TPS) and independent dose verification software using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, aiming to predict the gamma passing rate (GPR) in VMAT patient-specific QA more accurately. Materials and method: We utilized data from 710 clinical VMAT plans measured with an ArcCHECK phantom. These plans were recalculated on an ArcCHECK phantom image using Pinnacle TPS and MC algorithms, and the planar dose distributions corresponding to the detector element surfaces were utilized as input for the DL model. A convolutional neural network (CNN) comprising four layers was employed for model training. The model's performance was evaluated through multiple predictive error metrics and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for various gamma criteria. Results: The mean absolute errors (MAE) between measured GPR and predicted GPR are 1.1%, 1.9%, 1.7%, and 2.6% for the 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, 2%/3mm, and 2%/2mm gamma criteria, respectively. The correlation coefficients between predicted GPR and measured GPR are 0.69, 0.72, 0.68, and 0.71 for each gamma criterion. The AUC (Area Under the Curve) values based on ROC curve for the four gamma criteria are 0.90, 0.92, 0.93, and 0.89, indicating high classification performance. Conclusion: This DL-based approach showcases significant potential in enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of VMAT patient-specific QA. This approach promises to be a useful tool for reducing the workload of patient-specific quality assurance.
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.