SU-E-T-548: Retrospective Evaluation of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Plans at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study summarizes the stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans created over a period of five years. Additionally, factors that influenced the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) conformity indices of the plans were determined. Methods: A database of 170 SRS plans for brain metastases patients treated at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre using dynamic conformal arcs between November 2004 and December 2009 was constructed. This database was then used to retrospectively evaluate SRS plans and to determine target parameters that affect RTOG conformity index which is defined by CI= VRI/TV where VRI is the volume that receives the reference isodose and TV is the target volume. Results: Factors such as maximum dose to the target and minimum dose to the target did not appear to influence RTOG conformity index. However, target volume did relate to RTOG conformity index: conformity index increased as target volume decreased. For the 101 plans with target volumes larger than 1cm3 the average conformity index value was 1.68. For plans with target volumes smaller than 1cm3 the average conformity index value was 2.41. Additionally, a decrease in RTOG conformity index was correlated with a decrease in the volume of normal tissue receiving the prescription isodose. For plans where the volume of normal tissue receiving the prescription isodose was less than 1 cm3 the average RTOG conformity index was 1.32 while for plans where the volume of normal tissue receiving the prescription isodose was greater than 1 cm3 the average RTOG conformity index was 2.36 Conclusions: 170 SRS plans for brain metastases were evaluated and it was found that RTOG conformity index was influenced by target size and could be linked to the volume of non target tissue receiving the prescription isodose
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".