ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Comparison of DVH-based machine learning and 3D convolutional neural network approaches for automated VMAT planning in head and neck cancer.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared a dose-volume histogram-based machine learning (ML) approach with a three-dimensional dose distribution-based convolutional neural network (CNN) approach for volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning in head and neck cancer (HNC). Sixty-five patients who underwent whole-neck radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed; 55 cases were used for model training and 10 for independent testing. Treatment plans generated by the CNN-based framework and a commercial ML-based planning system (RapidPlan) were evaluated using dose-volume indices (DVIs) and blinded qualitative scoring. In the DVI analysis, the ML-based plans achieved significantly higher target coverage than both the CNN-based and clinical plans. In contrast, the CNN-based plans maintained a mean error of less than 2% relative to the clinical plans, indicating close agreement with the clinical standard. No statistically significant differences in organs-at-risk dose metrics were observed among the three approaches. In the blinded qualitative evaluation, mean scores were 4.7 ± 0.56, 4.0 ± 1.07, and 2.7 ± 0.90 for the clinical, CNN-based, and ML-based plans, respectively, with the ML-based plans receiving significantly lower scores. These findings indicate that differences in prediction methodology and optimization strategy influence final plan quality, particularly with respect to spatial dose characteristics. Three-dimensional dose distribution-based prediction may provide clinical advantages for automated radiotherapy planning in HNC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42234324What 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.