ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Distinguishing model- and environment-related effects in knowledge-based planning of moderately hypofractionated prostate VMAT.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge-based planning (KBP) can improve the efficiency and consistency of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT); however, the extent to which treatment-machine characteristics influence KBP model behavior remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of machine-specific KBP models by distinguishing the contributions of model libraries and plan-generation environment. Three RapidPlan models were independently trained using 30 manually generated plans created on NovalisTx (15X), TrueBeam (10X), and Halcyon (6FFF). The models were applied to an independent cohort of 15 patients using two complementary evaluation approaches: a clinical evaluation employing each machine's native beam model and a controlled evaluation using a common TrueBeam 10X beam model with identical optimization settings. Dosimetric endpoints included planning target volume excluding the rectum (PTV-R) D2% and D98%, rectal V31/V46/V54/V58 Gy, and bladder V31/V50 Gy. In the library plans, significant differences were observed for the PTV-R metrics, rectal V54/V58 Gy, and bladder V50 Gy. Under clinical conditions, significant differences remained for the PTV-R D2% and D98% and for bladder V50 Gy, whereas rectal indices showed no significant differences. Under controlled conditions, differences in PTV-R and rectal metrics were no longer significant, whereas bladder V31 Gy and V50 Gy remained significantly different. These findings suggest that the impact of machine-specific KBP models is endpoint-dependent and reflect the combined influence of model-derived objectives and the plan-generation environment. Standardization of beam modeling and optimization conditions reduced inter-model differences for target and rectal metrics, whereas bladder-related differences persisted, indicating that KBP model management in multi-machine environments should consider endpoint-dependent behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484985What 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.