MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037004375 · doi:10.1118/1.4810943

<i>In vivo</i> dosimetry in brachytherapy

2013· review· en· W2037004375 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryBrachytherapyMedical physicsNuclear medicineMedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vivo dosimetry (IVD) has been used in brachytherapy (BT) for decades with a number of different detectors and measurement technologies. However, IVD in BT has been subject to certain difficulties and complexities, in particular due to challenges of the high-gradient BT dose distribution and the large range of dose and dose rate. Due to these challenges, the sensitivity and specificity toward error detection has been limited, and IVD has mainly been restricted to detection of gross errors. Given these factors, routine use of IVD is currently limited in many departments. Although the impact of potential errors may be detrimental since treatments are typically administered in large fractions and with high-gradient-dose-distributions, BT is usually delivered without independent verification of the treatment delivery. This Vision 20/20 paper encourages improvements within BT safety by developments of IVD into an effective method of independent treatment verification.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.327 · 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