Separating active irradiation from passive outcome learning in radiotherapy: a finite-model computational benchmark

Abstract

Apparent gains from informative irradiation may reflect treatment reoptimization or better use of outcomes from static treatment. We tested whether changing irradiation adds value beyond optimized static treatment, passive outcome learning, and data-dependent stopping. Three synthetic three-dimensional geometries supplied 51 parent fluences. Four known response scenarios generated Bernoulli risks from normalized organ-dose contrasts at uncalibrated slopes of 0, 4, 16, and 64; one unknown scenario applied to all 2,816 hypothetical uses. Loss included acquisition and deployment. We compared fixed passive and locally selected fixed active sampling, passive optimal stopping, and a restricted one-checkpoint, one-switch active policy with a shared terminal menu. Fixed active sampling improved on fixed passive sampling in three of nine nonzero-slope conditions, but never on passive stopping. One-switch adaptation added at most 4.00625e-5 expected model events avoided. With the policies held fixed, two of four increments above the numerical reporting threshold reversed sign under alternative integration; all four became negative at some allowed prior weighting. Adding three generated probes changed none of 72 paired policy values, and none was used on a positive-probability path. The tested probes did not demonstrate stable incremental value beyond optimized passive stopping. Treatment opportunities, stopping permissions, acquisition costs, and input sensitivity must be separated when attributing benefits to active irradiation. These are restricted finite-model results, not evidence about unrestricted active learning or clinical safety and effectiveness.