MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013254410 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22555

A review of hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy

2007· review· en· W2013254410 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Lutz, Edward Chow, William F. Hartsell, André Konski

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyPalliative careProstate cancerExternal beam radiotherapyRadiation treatment planningRectumCancerRadiologySurgeryBrachytherapyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiotherapy commonly is employed to address symptoms in patients with symptoms caused by cancer. For this article, the authors reviewed data supporting the use of hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy. In addition to single-fraction treatment for painful bony metastasis, the available literature suggested that courses of 2 to 14 external-beam fractions may provide equivalent relief to longer course treatment in patients with a poor prognosis who have primary cancers of the lung, rectum, bladder, prostate, head and neck, spleen, and gynecologic system. Hypofractionated treatment delivers palliation that is time efficient, cost effective, and minimally toxic. Evidence suggests that the reluctance of radiation oncologists to provide single-fraction treatment acts as a barrier to referrals from palliative care professionals. Collaboration in education, research, and patient advocacy will advance the common objectives of the 2 specialties and lead to an appropriate increase in the use of palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207