ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A comparative analysis of deep learning architectures with data augmentation and multichannel input for locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of deep learning architectures with data augmentation and multichannel input for locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStudies on deep learning dose prediction increasingly focus on 3D models with multiple input channels and data augmentation, which increases the training time and thus also the environmental burden and hampers the ease of re-training. Here we compare 2D and 3D U-Net models with clinical accepted plans to evaluate the appropriateness of using less computationally heavy models.
methodsA 2D Attention U-Net, a 2D HD U-Net, and a 3D U-Net were trained using 1 or 5 input channels with or without data augmentation and data from 89 locoregional breast cancer patients. Results were compared to clinically accepted plans. The significance of inclusion of more channels or data augmentation was compared to the base models and the HD U-Net and Attention U-Net were compared to their respective identically trained counterparts.
resultsThe Attention U-Net reached fewest PTV clinical goals (28%, mostly due to a too high average breast PTV dose) and improved using significantly using five channels and augmentation (49%). The HD U-Net already fulfilled 70% of the PTV goals, which did not improve much by adding more channels or augmentation. The 3D U-Net with five channels and augmentation reached 76%, compared to 81% in the clinically accepted plans. The lower rates for the HD U-Net compared to the 3D U-Net and clinical plans were mainly caused by a lower PTVn1n2 D98%, which was still on average 93%. Organ-at-risk goals were met in most cases for all models. Training time was approximately 8 fold for the 3D model.
conclusionsComparable results to a 3D U-Net and clinical plans can be reached with a 2D HD U-net for a dataset size commonly seen in clinical practice. The Attention U-Net did profit from adding extra channels and data augmentation but did not reach the same level of accuracy as the other models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.