Improving the performance of deep learning models in predicting and classifying gamma passing rates with discriminative features and a class balancing technique: a retrospective cohort study

The purpose of this study was to improve the deep learning (DL) model performance in predicting and classifying IMRT gamma passing rate (GPR) by using input features related to machine parameters and a class balancing technique. A total of 2348 fields from 204 IMRT plans for patients with nasopharyn...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation oncology (London, England) England), 2024-07, Vol.19 (1), p.98-12, Article 98
Hauptverfasser: Song, Wei, Shang, Wen, Li, Chunying, Bian, Xinyu, Lu, Hong, Ma, Jun, Yu, Dahai
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The purpose of this study was to improve the deep learning (DL) model performance in predicting and classifying IMRT gamma passing rate (GPR) by using input features related to machine parameters and a class balancing technique. A total of 2348 fields from 204 IMRT plans for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were retrospectively collected to form a dataset. Input feature maps, including fluence, leaf gap, leaf speed of both banks, and corresponding errors, were constructed from the dynamic log files. The SHAP framework was employed to compute the impact of each feature on the model output for recursive feature elimination. A series of UNet++ based models were trained on the obtained eight feature sets with three fine-tuning methods including the standard mean squared error (MSE) loss, a re-sampling technique, and a proposed weighted MSE loss (WMSE). Differences in mean absolute error, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were compared between the different models. The models trained with feature sets including leaf speed and leaf gap features predicted GPR for failed fields more accurately than the other models (F(7, 147) = 5.378, p 
ISSN:1748-717X
1748-717X
DOI:10.1186/s13014-024-02496-5