SU‐E‐P‐26: Oncospace: A Shared Radiation Oncology Database System Designed for Personalized Medicine, Decision Support, and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Advancement in Radiation Oncology (RO) practice develops through evidence based medicine and clinical trial. Knowledge usable for treatment planning, decision support and research is contained in our clinical data, stored in an Oncospace database. This data store and the tools for populating and analyzing it are compatible with standard RO practice and are shared with collaborating institutions. The question is ‐ what protocol for system development and data sharing within an Oncospace Consortium? We focus our example on the technology and data meaning necessary to share across the Consortium. Methods: Oncospace consists of a database schema, planning and outcome data import and web based analysis tools.1) Database: The Consortium implements a federated data store; each member collects and maintains its own data within an Oncospace schema. For privacy, PHI is contained within a single table, accessible to the database owner.2) Import: Spatial dose data from treatment plans (Pinnacle or DICOM) is imported via Oncolink. Treatment outcomes are imported from an OIS (MOSAIQ).3) Analysis: JHU has built a number of webpages to answer analysis questions. Oncospace data can also be analyzed via MATLAB or SAS queries.These materials are available to Consortium members, who contribute enhancements and improvements. Results: 1) The Oncospace Consortium now consists of RO centers at JHU, UVA, UW and the University of Toronto. These members have successfully installed and populated Oncospace databases with over 1000 patients collectively.2) Members contributing code and getting updates via SVN repository. Errors are reported and tracked via Redmine. Teleconferences include strategizing design and code reviews.3) Successfully remotely queried federated databases to combine multiple institutions’ DVH data for dose‐toxicity analysis (see below – data combined from JHU and UW Oncospace). Conclusion: RO data sharing can and has been effected according to the Oncospace Consortium model: http://oncospace.radonc.jhmi.edu/ . John Wong ‐ SRA from Elekta; Todd McNutt ‐ SRA from Elekta; Michael Bowers ‐ funded by Elekta
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.017 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".