MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046361557 · doi:10.1177/153303460500400510

Treating the Contents and Not the Container: Dosimetric Study of Hair-sparing Whole Brain Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

2005· article· en· W2046361557 on OpenAlexaff
David Roberge, William Parker, Tamim Niazi, Marina Olivares

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineDosimetryHair lossRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningToxicityRadiologyInternal medicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematogenous metastatases are the most common adult central nervous system malignancies. The standard treatment of these patients continues to include whole brain radiation. An unavoidable toxicity of this treatment is acute iatrogenic alopecia. This alopecia is a significant cause of patient distress. Our purpose was to quantify the sparing of the hair bearing skin that could be achieved by using a complex hair-sparing approach. To achieve this goal, we treat an anthropomorphic phantom with both conventional and inverse-planned intensity-modulated portals. The skin dose was evaluated through dose-volume histograms and thermo-luminescent dosimetry. The median calculated dose was reduced by 38%. The average measured dose at five surface points was reduced by 53%--from 95% of the prescription dose with the conventional plan, to 44%, with the IMRT plan. This sparing was achieved while maintaining adequate target coverage. Because of the low radiation tolerance of the hair follicle, this dose reduction is not expected, on its own, to eliminate radiation alopecia but bears promise in combination with other toxicity-sparing strategies.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology in Cancer Research & TreatmentSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207