ArticleMedical physics2025
A comparison of voxel sampling approaches for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Article in Medical physics, 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.
- A comparison of voxel sampling approaches for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.Medical physics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning technology has made personalized cancer care a reality for millions of patients in recent decades. The complexity of these tools, however, often leads to intractability and suboptimal mitigation strategies in otherwise well-optimized plans. An example of such a strategy is reducing data granularity through voxel sampling. PURPOSE: While the practice of sampling is nearly universal in treatment planning, methods vary widely across studies and clinical practices, and few studies directly compare these approaches. The goal of this study is to examine the relative quality loss of some of the more common voxel sampling methods proposed in the literature.
methodsFive core sampling approaches identified from the literature, and their variations, were distilled into eight distinct sampling methods. A comparative framework, with multiple fluence map optimization models was developed into a testing pipeline built on MATLAB, C++, and CPLEX. This pipeline was then used to evaluate the trade-off between computational complexity and information loss across all sampling approaches. The pipeline was run on the open-source CORT dataset as well as a retrospective clinical lung, prostate, chest wall, esophagus and neck studies, at sampling rates that disregarded roughly 87.5%, 93.7%, and 96.9% of patient voxels, respectively.
resultsOf the eight methods tested, coordinate-based
conclusionsThe proposed framework was successfully able to inform the selection of sampling approach based on patient data characteristics in the IMRT setting. Future extensions could lead to enhanced sampling methods as well as methodological expansions to more radiation treatment modalities.
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.