MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990026153 · doi:10.1118/1.4740208

Sci—Sat AM: Brachy — 01: Evaluation of dose‐volume metrics for microbeam radiation therapy

2012· article· en· W1990026153 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Anderson, Albert Siegbahn, B. G. Fallone, Raphaël Serduc, Brad Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineCollimated lightMicrobeamMonte Carlo methodDosimetryRadiation treatment planningVolume (thermodynamics)Radiation therapyMaterials sciencePhysicsOpticsMathematicsMedicineStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) is an experimental technique delivering an array of high dose synchrotron X-ray microbeams. Development of metrics to predict the biological efficacy of MRT dose distributions is needed to guide further MRT research and for potential translation to human trials. The most commonly used metric is the peak-to-valley-dose ratio (PVDR) relating the dose at the microbeam center to that between two microbeams. We investigate three additional metrics that characterize dose distributions from a more volumetric perspective - the peak-to-mean-valley-dose ratio (PMVDR), mean dose, and percentage volume below a threshold. The metrics are evaluated for Monte Carlo simulations of dose distributions in three cubic head phantoms (2, 4 and 8 cm side lengths) for microbeam widths of 25, 50, and 75 μm and centre-to-centre spacings of 100, 200 and 400 μm. The ratio of the PMVDR to the PVDR varied from 0.24 to 0.80 for the different configurations, indicating a difference in the predicted geometric dependence of outcome for these two metrics. The mean dose was 102, 79, and 42 % of the mean skin dose for the 2, 8, and 16 cm head phantoms, respectively. The percentage volume below a 10% dose threshold was highly dependent on geometry, with ranges for the different collimation configurations of 2 - 87% and 33 - 96% for the 2 and 16 cm heads, respectively. Different dose-volume metrics exhibit different dependencies on MRT geometry parameters, suggesting that reliance on PVDR as a predictor of therapeutic outcome may be insufficient.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.007

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→