Researcher profile

Jeff Winter

Jeff Winter contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Domain Adaptation of Automated Treatment Planning from Computed Tomography to Magnetic Resonance

Objective: Machine learning (ML) based radiation treatment (RT) planning addresses the iterative and time-consuming nature of conventional inverse planning. Given the rising importance of Magnetic resonance (MR) only treatment planning workflows, we sought to determine if an ML based treatment planning model, trained on computed tomography (CT) imaging, could be applied to MR through domain adaptation. Methods: In this study, MR and CT imaging was collected from 55 prostate cancer patients treated on an MR linear accelerator. ML based plans were generated for each patient on both CT and MR imaging using a commercially available model in RayStation 8B. The dose distributions and acceptance rates of MR and CT based plans were compared using institutional dose-volume evaluation criteria. The dosimetric differences between MR and CT plans were further decomposed into setup, cohort, and imaging domain components. Results: MR plans were highly acceptable, meeting 93.1% of all evaluation criteria compared to 96.3% of CT plans, with dose equivalence for all evaluation criteria except for the bladder wall, penile bulb, small and large bowel, and one rectum wall criteria (p<0.05). Changing the input imaging modality (domain component) only accounted for about half of the dosimetric differences observed between MR and CT plans. Anatomical differences between the ML training set and the MR linac cohort (cohort component) were also a significant contributor. Significance: We were able to create highly acceptable MR based treatment plans using a CT-trained ML model for treatment planning, although clinically significant dose deviations from the CT based plans were observed.