MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831818507 · doi:10.2147/bctt.s81710

Hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy: current perspectives

2015· review· en· W1831818507 on OpenAlexaff
Theodora Koulis, Tien Phan, Ivo A. Olivotto

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Targets and Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgical oncologyCurrent (fluid)Breast cancerRadiation therapyMedical physicsOncologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is an important part of breast cancer management but the dose and fractionation schedules used are variable. A total of 50 Gy in 25 daily fractions delivered over 5 weeks is often considered the "standard" adjuvant RT prescription. Hypofractionated regimes such as 42.5 Gy in 16 daily fractions or 40 Gy in 15 daily fractions following breast-conserving surgery have proven to be equally effective and achieve similar or better cosmetic and normal tissue outcomes for both invasive and in situ diseases and when treating the regional nodes. Hypofractionation is more convenient for patients and less costly. However, certain patients at higher risk of RT late effects may benefit from a less intense, even more extended fractionation schedule. This review describes the indications for whole breast hypofractionated adjuvant RT for patients with breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery and proposes that hypofractionation should be the new "standard" for adjuvant breast cancer RT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer Targets and TherapySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207