MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992638445 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/3/r77

Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy: I. Treatment planning and inter-fraction motion management

2015· review· en· W1992638445 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Fontanarosa, Skadi van der Meer, Jeffrey C. Bamber, Emma Harris, Tuathan O’Shea, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsUltrasoundRadiation therapyComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiation treatment planningImage (mathematics)External beam radiotherapyUltrasound imagingComputer visionMedicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyBrachytherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern radiotherapy, verification of the treatment to ensure the target receives the prescribed dose and normal tissues are optimally spared has become essential. Several forms of image guidance are available for this purpose. The most commonly used forms of image guidance are based on kilovolt or megavolt x-ray imaging. Image guidance can also be performed with non-harmful ultrasound (US) waves. This increasingly used technique has the potential to offer both anatomical and functional information.This review presents an overview of the historical and current use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US imaging for treatment verification in radiotherapy. The US technology and the implementation in the radiotherapy workflow are described. The use of US guidance in the treatment planning process is discussed. The role of US technology in inter-fraction motion monitoring and management is explained, and clinical studies of applications in areas such as the pelvis, abdomen and breast are reviewed. A companion review paper (O'Shea et al 2015 Phys. Med. Biol. submitted) will extensively discuss the use of US imaging for intra-fraction motion quantification and novel applications of US technology to RT.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations96
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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