Literature DB >> 33503599

A comparison of Monte Carlo dropout and bootstrap aggregation on the performance and uncertainty estimation in radiation therapy dose prediction with deep learning neural networks.

Dan Nguyen1, Azar Sadeghnejad Barkousaraie1, Gyanendra Bohara1, Anjali Balagopal1, Rafe McBeth1, Mu-Han Lin1, Steve Jiang1.   

Abstract

Recently, artificial intelligence technologies and algorithms have become a major focus for advancements in treatment planning for radiation therapy. As these are starting to become incorporated into the clinical workflow, a major concern from clinicians is not whether the model is accurate, but whether the model can express to a human operator when it does not know if its answer is correct. We propose to use Monte Carlo Dropout (MCDO) and the bootstrap aggregation (bagging) technique on deep learning (DL) models to produce uncertainty estimations for radiation therapy dose prediction. We show that both models are capable of generating a reasonable uncertainty map, and, with our proposed scaling technique, creating interpretable uncertainties and bounds on the prediction and any relevant metrics. Performance-wise, bagging provides statistically significant reduced loss value and errors in most of the metrics investigated in this study. The addition of bagging was able to further reduce errors by another 0.34% for [Formula: see text] and 0.19% for [Formula: see text] on average, when compared to the baseline model. Overall, the bagging framework provided significantly lower mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.62, as opposed to the baseline model's MAE of 2.87. The usefulness of bagging, from solely a performance standpoint, does highly depend on the problem and the acceptable predictive error, and its high upfront computational cost during training should be factored in to deciding whether it is advantageous to use it. In terms of deployment with uncertainty estimations turned on, both methods offer the same performance time of about 12 s. As an ensemble-based metaheuristic, bagging can be used with existing machine learning architectures to improve stability and performance, and MCDO can be applied to any DL models that have dropout as part of their architecture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33503599      PMCID: PMC8837265          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abe04f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  43 in total

1.  A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation: application to the prostate.

Authors:  A van't Riet; A C Mak; M A Moerland; L H Elders; W van der Zee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1997-02-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  An overlap-volume-histogram based method for rectal dose prediction and automated treatment planning in the external beam prostate radiotherapy following hydrogel injection.

Authors:  Yidong Yang; Eric C Ford; Binbin Wu; Michael Pinkawa; Baukelien van Triest; Patrick Campbell; Danny Y Song; Todd R McNutt
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ-at-risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans.

Authors:  Lulin Yuan; Yaorong Ge; W Robert Lee; Fang Fang Yin; John P Kirkpatrick; Q Jackie Wu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Clinical decision support of radiotherapy treatment planning: A data-driven machine learning strategy for patient-specific dosimetric decision making.

Authors:  Gilmer Valdes; Charles B Simone; Josephine Chen; Alexander Lin; Sue S Yom; Adam J Pattison; Colin M Carpenter; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  Knowledge-based automated planning with three-dimensional generative adversarial networks.

Authors:  Aaron Babier; Rafid Mahmood; Andrea L McNiven; Adam Diamant; Timothy C Y Chan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Using deep learning to predict beam-tunable Pareto optimal dose distribution for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Gyanendra Bohara; Azar Sadeghnejad Barkousaraie; Steve Jiang; Dan Nguyen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Knowledge-based prediction of plan quality metrics in intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Satomi Shiraishi; Jun Tan; Lindsey A Olsen; Kevin L Moore
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

Authors:  David Palma; Emily Vollans; Kerry James; Sandy Nakano; Vitali Moiseenko; Richard Shaffer; Michael McKenzie; James Morris; Karl Otto
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Knowledge-based prediction of three-dimensional dose distributions for external beam radiotherapy.

Authors:  Satomi Shiraishi; Kevin L Moore
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy.

Authors:  C X Yu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence and machine learning for medical imaging: A technology review.

Authors:  Ana Barragán-Montero; Umair Javaid; Gilmer Valdés; Dan Nguyen; Paul Desbordes; Benoit Macq; Siri Willems; Liesbeth Vandewinckele; Mats Holmström; Fredrik Löfman; Steven Michiels; Kevin Souris; Edmond Sterpin; John A Lee
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2021-05-09       Impact factor: 2.685

2.  A deep learning method for translating 3DCT to SPECT ventilation imaging: First comparison with 81m Kr-gas SPECT ventilation imaging.

Authors:  Tomohiro Kajikawa; Noriyuki Kadoya; Yosuke Maehara; Hiroshi Miura; Yoshiyuki Katsuta; Shinsuke Nagasawa; Gen Suzuki; Hideya Yamazaki; Nagara Tamaki; Kei Yamada
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 4.506

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.