Cargando…
Prediction of the output factor using machine and deep learning approach in uniform scanning proton therapy
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to develop machine and deep learning‐based models to predict output and MU based on measured patient quality assurance (QA) data in uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT). METHODS: This study involves 4,231 patient QA measurements conducted over the last 6 years....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386178/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32419245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12899 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to develop machine and deep learning‐based models to predict output and MU based on measured patient quality assurance (QA) data in uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT). METHODS: This study involves 4,231 patient QA measurements conducted over the last 6 years. In the current approach, output and MU are predicted by an empirical model (EM) based on patient treatment plan parameters. In this study, two MATLAB‐based machine and deep learning algorithms — Gaussian process regression (GPR) and shallow neural network (SNN) — were developed. The four parameters from patient QA (range, modulation, field size, and measured output factor) were used to train these algorithms. The data were randomized with a training set containing 90% and a testing set containing remaining 10% of the data. The model performance during training was accessed using root mean square error (RMSE) and R‐squared values. The trained model was used to predict output based on the three input parameters: range, modulation, and field size. The percent difference was calculated between the predicted and measured output factors. The number of data sets required to make prediction accuracy of GPR and SNN models' invariable was also evaluated. RESULTS: The prediction accuracy of machine and deep learning algorithms is higher than the EM. The output predictions with [GPR, SNN, and EM] within ± 2% and ± 3% difference were [97.16%, 97.64%, and 92.95%] and [99.76%, 99.29%, and 97.18%], respectively. The GPR model outperformed the SNN with a smaller number of training data sets. CONCLUSION: The GPR and SNN models outperformed the EM in terms of prediction accuracy. Machine and deep learning algorithms predicted the output factor and MU for USPT with higher predictive accuracy than EM. In our clinic, these models have been adopted as a secondary check of MU or output factors. |
---|