The influence of brachytherapy dose heterogeneity on estimates of / for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of estimates of alpha/beta for prostate tumours to dose heterogeneity in 125I brachytherapy implants, as well as to variation in selected radiobiological parameters, is analysed. The tumour control probabilities of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy are equated for ranges of alpha, Tpot, RBE and external beam dose. For each combination of parameters, the equality is used to derive the value of alpha/beta. Different clinical (non-uniform) brachytherapy dose distributions, and three uniform brachytherapy dose distributions (120, 144 and 160 Gy) are used. For 'nominal' input parameter values of Tpot = 45 days, alpha = 0.2 Gy(-1), RBE = 1.4, and an external beam dose of 70 Gy, the values obtained for alpha/beta ranged between 2.1 and 12.3 Gy for all of the clinical DVHs, between 2.1 and 3.8 Gy for the better quality clinical implants and between 1.0 and 1.8 Gy for the uniform brachytherapy doses. When only 2% of the volume receiving the lowest dose is omitted from the clinical DVHs, the estimated alpha/beta values ranged between 1.4 and 2.1 Gy. When ranges of input parameters were also considered, the overall range of alpha/beta values for the clinical brachytherapy dose distributions lay between 1.1 and 12.3 Gy for the three best clinical implants, and between 0.7 and 6.3 Gy for uniform doses. We conclude that estimation of alpha/beta without taking into account dose heterogeneity and inter-patient variation may underestimate the actual value alpha/beta.
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 | 0.016 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".