ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Machine-learning-based integration of temporal and spectral prompt gamma-ray information for proton range verification.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. 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.
- Imaging, automation and workflow challenges for online adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Prompt gamma-ray timing (PGT) and prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy (PGS) are non-invasive techniques for dose delivery monitoring in proton radiotherapy. Integrating PGT and PGS into a unified data analysis framework may improve proton range verification by incorporating both temporal and spectral information from prompt gamma-ray events. This study evaluates the effectiveness of this integration for enhancing the accuracy of proton range verification using machine-learning. Material and Methods: A homogeneous phantom was irradiated with 162 and 225 MeV static and scanned proton beams. Air cavities of 5, 10 and 20 mm were introduced to simulate anatomical variations. The energy and time of arrival of prompt gamma rays were measured using a PGT detector. 2-dimensional time-energy spectra were extracted for 1,440 proton spots. Different feature sets (energy-only, time-only, energy-restricted time, image) were computed. These feature sets were used by four different machine-learning models to predict range shifts. Model performance was assessed using the root mean square error (RMSE). Results: Time-only and combined time-energy feature sets exhibited good performance with RMSE values of 3 to 4 mm, consistent with previously developed models. Energy-only and image features led to poorer performance with RMSE values exceeding 5 mm. The integration of energy-only features did not improve prediction accuracy compared to exclusively using time-only features. Conclusion: While spectral information did not contribute additional value for determining proton beam range shifts in the investigated setup, the findings show that temporal information alone is sufficient to perform accurate proton range verification.
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.