A deep learning method for predicting proton beam range and spread-out Bragg peak in passive scattering mode
Journal of the Korean Physical Society, ISSN: 1976-8524, Vol: 85, Issue: 3, Page: 256-266
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
It is difficult to calculate monitor units in the proton treatment planning system due to the complexity of using this system in the double scattering mode of proton therapy. Moreover, the range and spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) values using the conversion algorithm (CONVALGO) provided by IBA (C, C) are different from the actual measured range (M) and SOBP (M) values. In this regard, the CONVALGO (FC) value (FC, FC) should be measured according to the quality assurance (QA) of patient treatment, which requires physical effort and time. This study, therefore, aimed to reduce the time and effort spent on QA. The predictive model was trained using six parameters. Main option, sub-option, M and M were used as input values, and FC and FC were used as label. The trained model predicted the CONVALGO (PC) values of PC and PC. The test dataset has 261 patient data that were not used for training. Difference, mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error (RMSE) values were used for comparison. Compared to the FC value, the maximum difference was − 2.2 mm for PC and − 3.4 mm for C. The acceptable standard of patient QA in our institute is within 1 mm and the number of data points that met the acceptable standard was 196 for PC and 191 for C. For the MAE of PC, options 1, 2, and 3 showed values within 1 mm. In the MAE of C, the values were > 1 mm for all options.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know