MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thermal Therapy, Part IV: Electromagnetic and Thermal Dosimetry

2007· review· en· W1988332932 on OpenAlexaff
Riadh Habash, Rajeev Bansal, Daniel Krewski, H.T. Al-Hafid

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryRadiation treatment planningMedical physicsDocumentationRadiation therapyHeat transferNuclear engineeringSystems engineeringMedicineComputer scienceNuclear medicineEngineeringPhysicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article some of the important techniques in electromagnetic (EM) and thermal dosimetry are reviewed. Three major areas are discussed: modeling power deposition and estimation of EM energy absorbed by tissues exposed to EM radiation, electrical-thermal modeling for thermal therapy with various models of heat transfer in living tissues, and thermal dosimetry using invasive and noninvasive thermometry. Knowledge about the temperature distributions achieved can only be obtained by treatment planning of patient therapy. This process is called thermal therapy planning system (TTPS), which is a large and complex system for design, control, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment that also provides data for treatment optimization. Various imaging techniques for guidance and monitoring necessary for clinical treatments are also discussed. The review concludes by suggesting future avenues for investigations.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207