MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001992913 · doi:10.1118/1.2965949

Poster - Thurs Eve-30: Investigation of a patient immobilization system for breast tomotherapy

2008· article· en· W2001992913 on OpenAlexaff
Jared Strydhorst, J-M Caudrelier, Lynn Montgomery, B. G. Clark, M MacPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMedicineBreast cancerLumpectomyTorsoBreathingSupine positionNuclear medicineRadiation therapyMastectomyRadiologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using tomotherapy to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer treatment requires more precise immobilization than can be achieved using gravity alone. We evaluated the use of a thermoplastic shell to immobilize the patient's torso during breast cancer treatment. To measure intrafraction breathing motion, 4DCT scans were performed for eight post-lumpectomy or post-mastectomy breast cancer patients with the thermoplastic shell in place. The 4DCT scans were then analyzed to determine the magnitude of motion of the breast surface, chest wall, and heart over the breathing cycle. Maximum surface motion was typically less than 2mm, with a maximum of 4mm. Maximum displacement of the chest wall was less than 3mm with a maximum of 5mm in a single patient. Comparison with the setup errors recorded prior to repositioning the patients suggests that, with the thermoplastic shell in place, patient setup error will be a more significant source of uncertainty in patient position than breathing motion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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