MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965565147 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277753

Modeling of an Iterated Birth/Death Markov Process for Optimization of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning

2006· article· en· W1965565147 on OpenAlexaff
Robin F. Castelino, Ahmed El Kaffas, Omar Falou, Olivia Das

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClonogenic assayMarkov chainPopulationIterated functionMarkov processFraction (chemistry)Markov modelStochastic modellingApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsCellBiologyChemistryMedicineGeneticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, an iterated birth/death Markov process is modeled. Recent publications show that such a process can mimic the behaviour of clonogenic tumour cells exposed to fractionated radiation treatments. The model consists of a sequence of birth/death Markov chains, separated by radiation fractions. The destruction of tumour cells during a fraction of radiation is described by the linear-quadratic cell model. The stochastic behaviour of the cell population between radiation fractions is then described by a birth/death Markov process in order to determine how many clonogenic cells are present prior to the next fraction of radiation. Numerical analysis of the model was conducted with a tumour size of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">9</sup> cells. Results from the model showed it would require a schedule of 27 radiation fractions at 2Gy per fraction delivered on every business day for a total of 38 days for the clonogenic population to reach zero. An advantage to such a model is that can be used to study both constant as well as variable radiation intervals and dosages. Model construction, validation, results and its applications in optimizing radiotherapy treatment planning are discussed

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207