MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057899646 · doi:10.3747/co.21.2207

Recommendations for the Referral of Patients for Proton-Beam Therapy, an Alberta Health Services Report: A Model for Canada?

2014· article· en· W2057899646 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samir Patel, Xanthoula Kostaras, Matthew Parliament, Ivo A. Olivotto, Robert Nordal, Keith Aronyk, Neil A. Hagen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralProton therapyChordomaChondrosarcomaMEDLINERadiation therapyRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compared with photon therapy, proton-beam therapy (pbt) offers compelling advantages in physical dose distribution. Worldwide, gantry-based proton facilities are increasing in number, but no such facilities exist in Canada. To access pbt, Canadian patients must travel abroad for treatment at high cost. In the face of limited access, this report seeks to provide recommendations for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from pbt and suggests an out-of-country referral process. METHODS: The medline, embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2014 that evaluated clinical outcomes after pbt. A draft report developed through a review of evidence was externally reviewed and then approved by the Alberta Health Services Cancer Care Proton Therapy Guidelines steering committee. RESULTS: Proton therapy is often used to treat tumours close to radiosensitive tissues and to treat children at risk of developing significant late effects of radiation therapy (rt). In uncontrolled and retrospective studies, local control rates with pbt appear similar to, or in some cases higher than, photon rt. Randomized trials comparing equivalent doses of pbt and photon rt are not available. SUMMARY: Referral for pbt is recommended for patients who are being treated with curative intent and with an expectation for long-term survival, and who are able and willing to travel abroad to a proton facility. Commonly accepted indications for referral include chordoma and chondrosarcoma, intraocular melanoma, and solid tumours in children and adolescents who have the greatest risk for long-term sequelae. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend routine referral of patients with most head-and-neck, breast, lung, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic cancers, including prostate cancer. It is recommended that all referrals be considered by a multidisciplinary team to select appropriate cases.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207