MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016728345 · doi:10.1118/1.3679338

Static and rotational step-and-shoot IMRT treatment plans for the prostate: A risk comparison study

2012· article· en· W2016728345 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Blais, E. Lederer, Michael R. Oliver, Konrad Leszczyński

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLaurentian UniversitySudbury Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomNuclear medicineMedicineDosimetryRadiation treatment planningThermoluminescent dosimeterIonization chamberRadiation therapyMedical physicsRadiologyPhysicsDosimeter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: For certain clinical applications, rotational intensity modulated radiation therapy (R-IMRT) techniques such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are capable of improved target dose coverage and shorter delivery time when compared to static, step-and-shoot IMRT. The authors performed a risk comparison study for two standard step-and-shoot IMRT plans and two step-and-shoot Rotational IMRT plans that were designed specifically for a Siemens Primus linear accelerator. METHODS: CT images of a RANDO phantom were used to generate R-IMRT and static IMRT plans. One simple and one complex prostate cases were created to investigate these techniques. The R-IMRT plans consisted of 72 single-segmented 6 MV beams, equally spaced with beam angle separations of 5°. The static IMRT plans employed seven multisegmented 6 MV beams. Both types of plans were optimized in Pinnacle(3) with the direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) algorithm using the same set of optimization objectives. The plans were delivered to a RANDO phantom and thermoluminescent diode (TLD) dose measurements were performed at various locations throughout the phantom. Risk coefficients and organ weightings as defined by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 103 were used to calculate the resulting effective doses to various organs at risk, as well as the overall risk estimate for both techniques. RESULTS: For the simple prostate case, the R-IMRT technique provided a higher dose to organs at risk within the CT volume and a lower overall peripheral dose to remaining organs. The R-IMRT plan had a risk estimate of 4.56% when compared to the IMRT risk of 4.78%. For the complex prostate case, there was no significant difference in the lifetime risks of the IMRT (5.73%) and R-IMRT (5.74%) plans. CONCLUSIONS: R-IMRT is an approximation to VMAT and it was found that there is no clinically significant difference between lifetime risk estimates between R-IMRT and standard seven-beam IMRT for the prostate.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207