Optimal Location of Radiation Therapy Centers With Respect to Geographic Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a framework with which to evaluate locations of radiation therapy (RT) centers in a region based on geographic access. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient records were obtained for all external beam radiation therapy started in 2011 for the province of British Columbia, Canada. Two metrics of geographic access were defined. The primary analysis was percentage of patients (coverage) within a 90-minute drive from an RT center (C90), and the secondary analysis was the average drive time (ADT) to an RT center. An integer programming model was developed to determine optimal center locations, catchment areas, and capacity required under different scenarios. RESULTS: Records consisted of 11,096 courses of radiation corresponding to 161,616 fractions. Baseline geographic access was estimated at 102.5 minutes ADT (each way, per fraction) and 75.9% C90. Adding 2 and 3 new centers increased C90 to 88% and 92%, respectively, and decreased ADT by between 43% and 61%, respectively. A scenario in which RT was provided in every potential location that could support at least 1 fully utilized linear accelerator resulted in 35.3 minutes' ADT and 93.6% C90. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework and model provide a data-driven means to quantitatively evaluate alternative configurations of a regional RT system. Results suggest that the choice of location for future centers can significantly improve geographic access to RT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".