MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984951715 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/13/306

Optimization of helical tomotherapy treatment plans for prostate cancer

2003· article· en· W1984951715 on OpenAlexafffund
Г Григоров, Tomas Kron, Eugene Wong, J Chen, J Sollazzo, George Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy
KeywordsTomotherapyProstateProstate cancerMedicineNuclear medicineRadiation treatment planningRectumBrachytherapyRadiation therapyMargin (machine learning)RadiologyCancerComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helical tomotherapy (HT) is a novel treatment approach where the ring gantry irradiation geometry of a helical CT scanner is combined with an intensity-modulated megavoltage x-ray fan beam. An inverse treatment planning system (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison) was used to optimize the treatment plans for ten randomly selected prostate patients. Five different sets of margins (2, 5, 7.5 and 10 mm uniform 3D margins and a non-uniform margin of 5 to 10 mm) were employed for the prostate (GTV2) and seminal vesicles (GTV1). The dose distribution was evaluated in targets, rectum, bladder and femoral heads. HT plans are characterized by a rapid dose fall off around the target in all directions resulting in low doses (less than 30% of the dose at ICRU reference point) to the femurs in all cases. Up to a margin of 5 mm for target structures, it was always possible to satisfy the requirements for dose delivery set by RTOG protocol P-0126. Using a 'class solution', HT plans require minimal operator interaction and result in excellent sparing of normal structures in prostate radiotherapy.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations60
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207