## 3 Results
### Performance of Final ML Models
#### 3.3.2 Dosimetry
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Metric** & \(\rm{MCO_{gs}}\) & \(\rm{PGAP_{std}}\) & \(\rm{PGAP-ML_{reg}}\) & \(\rm{PGAP-ML_{clus}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm{MCO_{gs}}\)} & \(\rm{D_{98\%}}\) (Gy) & \(57.5\pm 0.200\) & \(57.5\pm 0.171\) & \(57.5\pm 0.189\) & \(57.5\pm 0.134\) \\  & \(\rm{D_{50\%}}\) (Gy) & \(60.0\pm 0.0748\) & \(59.9\pm 0.0611\) & \(\bf{59.9\pm 0.0723}\) & \(\bf{59.9\pm 0.0395}\) \\  & \(\rm{D_{22\%}}\) (Gy) & \(61.7\pm 0.0879\) & \(61.7\pm 0.0853\) & \(61.7\pm 0.0896\) & \(\bf{61.7\pm 0.0794}\) \\  & \(\rm{CI}\) & \(0.853\pm 0.00910\) & \(0.851\pm 0.0108\) & \(0.843\pm 0.0368\) & \(\bf{0.848\pm 0.0112}\) \\  & \(\rm{HI}\) & \(0.0700\pm 0.00435\) & \(0.0696\pm 0.00358\) & \(0.0706\pm 0.00441\) & \(0.0694\pm 0.00309\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm{MCO_{gs}}\)} & \(\rm{D_{98\%}}\) (Gy) & \(46.3\pm 0.532\) & \(\bf{46.1\pm 0.407}\) & \(\bf{46.0\pm 0.440}\) & \(46.2\pm 0.422\) \\  & \(\rm{D_{50\%}}\) (Gy) & \(53.3\pm 1.32\) & \(53.2\pm 1.20\) & \(53.4\pm 1.35\) & \(53.3\pm 1.22\) \\  & \(\rm{D_{22\%}}\) (Gy) & \(59.1\pm 0.277\) & \(59.2\pm 0.242\) & \(59.2\pm 0.347\) & \(59.1\pm 0.236\) \\  & \(\rm{CI}\) & \(0.812\pm 0.0327\) & \(\bf{0.823\pm 0.0210}\) & \(0.810\pm 0.0638\) & \(0.813\pm 0.0291\) \\  & \(\rm{HI}\) & \(0.241\pm 0.0112\) & \(\bf{0.246\pm 0.00892}\) & \(\bf{0.248\pm 0.00115}\) & \(0.243\pm 0.0101\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm{MCO_{gs}}\)} & \(\rm{V_{24.3\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(29.1\%\pm 8.47\%\) & \(\bf{28.5\%\pm 7.94\%}\) & \(28.7\%\pm 9.36\%\) & \(\bf{28.4\%\pm 8.21\%}\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{32.4\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(23.7\%\pm 7.44\%\) & \(\bf{23.2\%\pm 7.14\%}\) & \(23.3\%\pm 7.89\%\) & \(\bf{23.3\%\pm 7.29\%}\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{40.5\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(18.6\%\pm 6.17\%\) & \(\bf{18.2\%\pm 6.01\%}\) & \(\bf{18.2\%\pm 6.31\%}\) & \(\bf{18.3\%\pm 6.11\%}\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{48.6\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(12.8\%\pm 4.41\%\) & \(\bf{12.6\%\pm 4.38\%}\) & \(\bf{12.5\%\pm 4.43\%}\) & \(12.7\%\pm 4.46\%\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{52.7\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(9.32\%\pm 3.28\%\) & \(9.23\%\pm 3.26\%\) & \(9.21\%\pm 3.31\%\) & \(9.32\%\pm 3.37\%\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{56.8\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(5.32\%\pm 2.12\%\) & \(\bf{5.48\%\pm 2.20\%}\) & \(5.23\%\pm 2.21\%\) & \(5.46\%\pm 2.31\%\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{60.6\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(0.299\%\pm 0.445\%\) & \(0.271\%\pm 0.21\%\) & \(0.222\%\pm 0.213\%\) & \(0.180\%\pm 0.168\%\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{60.8\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(0.0690\%\pm 0.129\%\) & \(0.0430\%\pm 0.0419\%\) & \(0.0220\%\pm 0.0357\%\) & \(0.0223\%\pm 0.0351\%\) \\  & \(\rm{D_{mean}}\)(Gy) & \(18.7\pm 3.72\) & \(\bf{18.4\pm 3.50}\) & \(18.5\pm 4.18\) & \(\bf{18.3\pm 3.69}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm{MCO_{gs}}\)} & \(\rm{V_{40.5\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(18.0\%\pm 11.3\%\) & \(18.0\%\pm 11.3\%\) & \(17.9\%\pm 11.1\%\) & \(18.1\%\pm 11.4\%\) \\  & \(\rm{V_{48.6\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(12.2\%\pm 7.83\%\) & \(12.0\%\pm 7.70\%\) & \(12.1\%\pm 7.55\%\) & \(12.3\%\pm 7.83\%\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\rm{V_{52.7\rm{Gy}}}\) (\%) & \(9.46\%\pm 6.33\%\) & \(9.37\%\pm 6.25\%\) & \(9.35\%\pm 6.17\%\) & \(9.47\%\Figure 4: Plots showing absolute difference from \(\text{MCO}_{\text{gs}}\). Distributions are across the validation dataset of key dose related metrics for each of the three calibration techniques. In terms of individual outliers there was a low correspondence with those identified in the weight analysis. In the weight analysis, patients 21, 24, 25 and 36 were identified as notable outliers, with a total of 16 outlier weights across the three techniques. In the dosimetric analysis only 3 of these weights corresponded to dosimetric outliers: patient 24, bladder \(\text{D}_{\text{mean}}\) for all techniques and patient 21 rectum \(\text{D}_{\text{mean}}\) for PGAP-ML\({}_{\text{clus}}\).