English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  To find a suitable method for analyzing electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transmission fluence maps for the identification of position errors in the  in vivo  dose monitoring of patients with Graves’ ophthalmopathy (GO).    Methods  Position errors combining 0-, 2-, and 4-mm errors in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions in the delivery of 40 GO patient radiotherapy plans to a human head phantom were simulated and EPID transmission fluence maps were acquired. Dose difference (DD) and structural similarity (SSIM) maps were calculated to quantify changes in the fluence maps. Three types of machine learning (ML) models that utilize radiomics features of the DD maps (ML 1 models), features of the SSIM maps (ML 2 models), and features of both DD and SSIM maps (ML 3 models) as inputs were used to perform three types of position error classification, namely a binary classification of the isocenter error (type 1), three binary classifications of LR, SI, and AP direction errors (type 2), and an eight-element classification of the combined LR, SI, and AP direction errors (type 3). Convolutional neural network (CNN) was also used to classify position errors using the DD and SSIM maps as input.    Results  The best-performing ML 1 model was XGBoost, which achieved accuracies of 0.889, 0.755, 0.778, 0.833, and 0.532 in the type 1, type 2-LR, type 2-AP, type 2-SI, and type 3 classification, respectively. The best ML 2 model was XGBoost, which achieved accuracies of 0.856, 0.731, 0.736, 0.949, and 0.491, respectively. The best ML 3 model was linear discriminant classifier (LDC), which achieved accuracies of 0.903, 0.792, 0.870, 0.931, and 0.671, respectively. The CNN achieved classification accuracies of 0.925, 0.833, 0.875, 0.949, and 0.689, respectively.    Conclusion  ML models and CNN using combined DD and SSIM maps can analyze EPID transmission fluence maps to identify position errors in the treatment of GO patients. Further studies with large sample sizes are needed to improve the accuracy of CNN.

Analysis of EPID Transmission Fluence Maps Using Machine Learning Models and CNN for Identifying Position Errors in the Treatment of GO Patients