MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965860066 · doi:10.1097/cco.0b013e3283499d93

Technological advances in radiotherapy for cervical cancer

2011· review· en· W1965860066 on OpenAlexaff
Lorraine Walsh, Marita Morgia, Anthony Fyles, Michael Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Oncology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachytherapyCervical cancerRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningContouringMedical physicsExternal beam radiotherapyExternal beam radiationCancerClinical trialQuality assuranceRadiologyIntensive care medicinePathologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the important technological advances that have taken place in the planning and delivery of both external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, and the implications for improved clinical outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Technological advances in external beam radiation treatment and brachytherapy for patients with cervical cancer allow more precise targeting of tumour and relative sparing of surrounding normal organs and tissues. Early evidence is emerging to indicate that these advances will translate into improvements in tumour control and reduced side effects. However, there are patient, tumour and treatment-related factors that can detract from these benefits. Foremost among these is complex, unpredictable and sometimes dramatic internal tumour and normal organ motion during treatment. The focus of current research and clinical development is on tracking internal anatomic change in individual patients and adapting treatment plans as required to assure that optimal tumour coverage and normal tissue sparing is maintained at all times. The success of this approach will depend on clear definitions of target volumes, high resolution daily soft tissue imaging, and new software tools for rapid contouring, treatment planning and quality assurance. SUMMARY: Radiation treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer is evolving rapidly, driven by advances in technology, towards more individualized patient care that has the potential to substantially improve clinical outcomes.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207