MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2004442042 · doi:10.1118/1.2965914

Sci-Thurs PM: Delivery-07: Evaluation of prospects to use daily megavoltage CT studies for adaptive radiotherapy

2008· article· en· W2004442042 on OpenAlexaff
Slav Yartsev, Curtis Woodford, A. Rashid Dar, GS Bauman, Jacob Van Dyk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyRadiation therapyMedicineNuclear medicineRadiation treatment planningLung cancerRadiologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate gross tumor volume (GTV) changes for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients using daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) studies acquired before each treatment fraction on helical tomotherapy, and to relate the potential benefit of adaptive image-guided radiotherapy to changes in GTV. METHODS: 17 patients were prescribed 30 fractions of radiotherapy on helical tomotherapy for NSCLC at London Regional Cancer Program from December 2005 to March 2007. The GTV was contoured on the daily MVCT studies of each patient. Adapted plans were created using merged MVCT-kVCT image sets to investigate the advantages of replanning for patients with differing GTV regression characteristics. RESULTS: The average GTV change observed over 30 fractions was -38%, ranging from -12 to -87%. No significant correlation was observed between GTV change and patient's physical or tumor features. The pattern of GTV changes of the 17 patients could be broadly divided into 3 groups with distinctive potential for benefit from adaptive planning. CONCLUSIONS: GTV changes are difficult to predict quantitatively based on patient or tumor characteristics. If changes do occur, there are points in time during the treatment course when it may be appropriate to adapt the plan to improve sparing of normal tissues. If the GTV decreases by greater than 30% at any point in the first twenty fractions of treatment, adaptive planning is appropriate to further improve the therapeutic ratio.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→