MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053693309 · doi:10.1080/02841860410032777

Effect of heterogeneity in radiosensitivity on LQ based isoeffect formalism for low α/β cancers

2004· article· en· W2053693309 on OpenAlexaff
Vitali Moiseenko

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsLog-normal distributionGaussianMedicineFormalism (music)Nuclear medicineRadiation therapyRepopulationGaussian network modelRadiosensitivityStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Change of fractionation for external beam radiation therapy based on linear-quadratic (LQ) formalism assumes that a single alpha/beta is sufficient to characterize tumour response to dose fractionation. In reality, both inter-patient and intra-tumour heterogeneity might affect the applicability of isoeffectiveness formalism. The impact of heterogeneity on recently proposed hypofractionation schemes for the prostate has been analysed. The alpha/beta ratio was assumed to be Gaussian distributed with a mean value of 1.5 Gy. Gaussian and lognormal distributions for alpha were modelled. TCP model parameters were adjusted to lead to TCP = 0.80 for 70 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. TCP loss from heterogeneity and doses required to restore TCP = 0.80 were calculated. The effect of heterogeneity was moderate. Doses to restore TCP = 0.80 in most cases were less than 1 Gy. The largest TCP loss was 4%. The difference between predictions of single alpha/beta and heterogeneity models is too small to be detected in a clinical trial.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207