Intensity modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: the sensitivity of plan objectives and constraints to set-up uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to assess the impact of set-up uncertainty on compliance with the objectives and constraints of an intensity modulated radiation therapy protocol for early stage cancer of the oropharynx. As the convolution approach to the quantitative study of set-up uncertainties cannot accommodate either surface contours or internal inhomogeneities, both of which are highly relevant to sites in the head and neck, we have employed the more resource intensive direct simulation method. The impact of both systematic (variable from 0 to 6 mm) and random (fixed at 2 mm) set-up uncertainties on compliance with the criteria of the RTOG H-0022 protocol has been examined for eight geometrically complex structures: CTV66 (gross tumour volume and palpable lymph nodes suspicious for metastases), CTV54 (lymph node groups or surgical neck levels at risk of subclinical metastases), glottic larynx, spinal cord, brainstem, mandible and left and right parotids. In a probability-based approach, both dose-volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses were used to describe the dose distributions achieved by plans for two patients, in the presence of set-up uncertainty. The equivalent uniform dose is defined to be that dose which, when delivered uniformly to the organ of interest, will lead to the same response as the non-uniform dose under consideration. For systematic set-up uncertainties greater than 2 mm and 5 mm respectively, coverage of the CTV66 and CTV54 could be significantly compromised. Directional sensitivity was observed in both cases. Most organs at risk (except the glottic larynx which did not comply under static conditions) continued to meet the dose constraints up to 4 mm systematic uncertainty for both plans. The exception was the contra lateral parotid gland, which this protocol is specifically designed to protect. Sensitivity to systematic set-up uncertainty of 2 mm was observed for this organ at risk in both clinical plans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".