MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994566350 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/23/003

Robust optimization for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning under uncertainty

2005· article· en· W1994566350 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Radiation treatment planningRadiation therapyComputer scienceMedical physicsNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsRadiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent development of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows the dose distribution to be tailored to match the tumour's shape and position, avoiding damage to healthy tissue to a greater extent than previously possible. Traditional treatment plans assume that the target structure remains in a fixed location throughout treatment. However, many studies have shown that because of organ motion, inconsistencies in patient positioning over the weeks of treatment, etc, the tumour location is not stationary. We present a probabilistic model for the IMRT inverse problem and show that it is identical to using robust optimization techniques, under certain assumptions. For a sample prostate case, our computational results show that this method is computationally feasible and promising-compared to traditional methods, our model has the potential to find treatment plans that are more adept at sparing healthy tissue while maintaining the prescribed dose to the target.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.218 · 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