Po‐Poster ‐ 31: An improved derivation of the Joiner expressions for determining a simple independent method to derive fully isoeffective schedules following a change in dose per fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the paper written by Joiner (IJROBP 2004; 58(3): 871–875), entitled A simple α/β‐independent method to derive fully isoeffective effective schedules following a change in dose per fraction, the author derived two mathematical expressions by which dosimetric errors in delivering the prescribed dose per fraction in a treatment can be corrected for. In doing so, the author made an invalid assumption in which he assumed α/β is zero for both early and late effects. Even though this assumption is wrong, the author arrived “mistakenly” at the right solution. In this presentation, we use first principles to derive these two expressions and the limits at which they cannot be applied, both from radiobiological and mathematical point of views. We also explain the inherent α/β‐independence of the expressions. Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of CancerCare Manitoba Foundation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".