ArticleMedical physics2026
Gamma Knife treatment planning using knowledge-based reinforcement learning.
Article in Medical physics, 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
Abstract
backgroundInverse planning is often used for Gamma Knife radiosurgery, allowing clinicians to mathematically specify desired clinical objectives and dose limits. The objectives are controlled by weights that are manually tuned to find the desired trade-off, which varies from case to case. Automation of this process can reduce clinical workload and improve consistency in plan quality. PURPOSE: To train a deep reinforcement learning agent using a reward function that incorporates the clinical metrics from past plans into its scoring criteria. The metric trade-off from the clinical plan is scored higher than all others, guiding the agent to produce plans with similar trade-offs.
methodsAn agent was trained to adjust the two priority weights (i.e., digital slider bars) in the clinical inverse planner. The agent consists of a neural network that receives the metrics and dose distribution of the current plan and the target and organ-at-risk masks as inputs. These methods were demonstrated on a dataset of 204 single-target metastases and a dataset of 71 acoustic neuroma cases. The cases were split into training, validation, and testing sets of size 123/41/40 and 42/14/15 for the metastases and acoustic neuromas, respectively.
resultsOn the metastases test dataset, the agent achieved a significantly higher (p = 0.0136) average plan score (3.925 ± 0.130) compared to the default slider plans (3.874 ± 0.147). On the acoustic neuromas test dataset, the agent achieved a higher (p = 0.4493) average plan score (4.035 ± 0.177) compared to the default slider plans (3.995 ± 0.365). The higher plan scores are reflected in the four plan quality metrics: the agent's plans, on average, had metrics more similar to the clinical plans, compared to the default slider plans, for both test datasets.
conclusionsThe proposed reward function enabled the agent to learn to find plans that aligned with historical planning decisions. Future work will investigate providing the agent with additional inputs that can explain the variability in planning decisions, which would further improve its performance.
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.