MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008248783 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/22/004

Tissue modeling schemes in low energy breast brachytherapy

2011· article· en· W2008248783 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Afsharpour, Guillaume Landry, Brigitte Reniers, Jean‐Philippe Pignol, Luc Beaulieu, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité LavalSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcGill UniversityHôtel-Dieu de QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBrachytherapyBreast tissueNuclear medicineDosimetryImplantMedicineRadiation therapyRadiologyBreast cancerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast tissue is heterogeneous and is mainly composed of glandular (G) and adipose (A) tissues. The proportion of G versus A varies considerably among the population. The absorbed dose distributions in accelerated partial breast irradiation therapy with low energy photon brachytherapy sources are very sensitive to tissue heterogeneities. Current clinical algorithms use the recommendations of the AAPM TG43 report which approximates the human tissues by unit density water. The aim of this study is to investigate various breast tissue modeling schemes for low energy brachytherapy. A special case of breast permanent seed implant is considered here. Six modeling schemes are considered. Uniform and non-uniform water breast (UWB and NUWB) consider the density but neglect the effect of the composition of tissues. The uniform and the non-uniform G/A breast (UGAB and NUGAB) as well the age-dependent breast (ADB) models consider the effect of the composition. The segmented breast tissue (SBT) method uses a density threshold to distinguish between G and A tissues. The PTV D(90) metric is used for the analysis and is based on the dose to water (D(90(w,m))). D(90(m,m)) is also reported for comparison to D(90(w,m)). The two-month post-implant D(90(w,m)) averaged over 38 patients is smaller in NUWB than in UWB by about 4.6% on average (ranging from 5% to 13%). Large average differences of G/A breast models with TG43 (17% and 26% in UGAB and NUGAB, respectively) show that the effect of the chemical composition dominates the effect of the density on dose distributions. D(90(w,m)) is 12% larger in SBT than in TG43 when averaged. These differences can be as low as 4% or as high as 20% when the individual patients are considered. The high sensitivity of dosimetry on the modeling scheme argues in favor of an agreement on a standard tissue modeling approach to be used in low energy breast brachytherapy. SBT appears to generate the most geometrically reliable breast tissue models in this report.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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