MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2032949489 · doi:10.1118/1.4815021

SU‐E‐T‐593: Comparison of Three IMRT Adaptive Methods: The Case of Prostate Cancer

2013· article· en· W2032949489 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Cantin, N. Octave, Julie Goudreault, William Foster, B. Lachance, Luc Beaulieu, Louis Archambault, L Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstateProstate cancerNuclear medicineImage registrationGold standard (test)RadiologyCancerComputer scienceInternal medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Independant movements of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes during IMRT can limit margin reduction and affect the protection of organs‐at‐risk (OAR). In this study we perform an analysis of three adaptive treatments that combine information from both bony and gold marker registrations. The efficiency of those treatments against interfraction prostate movements was evaluated. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on four prostate cancer patients with 5 to 10 daily CBCTs. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) consisting of pelvic lymph nodes, prostate and seminal vesicles (SV) and OAR were delineated on each CBCT and on the initial CT. Three adaptive methods were analyzed. Two methods relied on a double patient positioning at each fraction. For these, nodal CTVs prescription was delivered on bony registration. Gold markers match was then used either to: (1) complete the dose delivered to prostate and SV (Complement); (2) give almost the entire prescription to prostate and SV with slow gradient between targets to compensate for motions (Controlled Gradient). The third method (COR) used a pool of pre‐calculated plans from anterior fractions where the plan with the prostate center of mass closest to the daily anatomy was chosen. Adaptive techniques were compared to the standard non‐corrected CT plan. Results: With adaptive techniques, prostate and SV V(100%) is improved by 4% compared to non‐corrective method. This improvement does not Result in dose increase to OAR. EUD to bladder is reduced with an average reduction of 15% for COR. Conclusion: Because of their increase in CTV coverage and OAR sparing, COR and Complement methods may be good candidates for simple and effective adaptive treatment strategies for prostate cancer. Further improvements may be obtained by tuning CTV margins. A cumulative dose to simulate a complete treatment will show real effects and allow better comparison between each method. Ministere de la Sante et des Services Sociaux

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→