Dose volume histogram analysis for organs at risk when using 6 external beam techniques for radical prostatic irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten patients with prostate cancer were each planned with 3 conventional and 3 conformal isocentric treatment techniques to compare the relative radiation doses to the bladder and rectal walls, and femoral head using dose volume histograms (DV H ). The DV H were calculated for each organ and each technique, and the plans were ranked using the area under the curve method and also by the relative radiation dose given to specific normal tissue volumes. The results show that for the planning target volume chosen, the 4 field non-coplanar technique delivers the least dose to the bladder, the 6 field coplanar technique delivers the least dose to the rectum and the 3 field oblique technique delivers the least dose to the femoral heads. The 4-field technique with no shielding contributes the most dose to the bladder and rectum and the 6 field coplanar technique contributes the most dose to the femoral heads. No technique was shown to be optimal for all the organs at risk, but both the 6 field and 4 field non-coplanar field arrangements were shown to be superior techniques for minimising both the bladder and rectal dosage. The choice of technique will therefore depend on other factors such as the total prescribed dose, the ease of set-up and the ease of verification of isocentre reproducibility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".