Dose-distance metric that predicts late rectal bleeding in patients receiving radical prostate external-beam radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between rectal dose distribution and the incidence of late rectal complications following external-beam radiotherapy has been previously studied using dose-volume histograms or dose-surface histograms. However, they do not account for the spatial dose distribution. This study proposes a metric based on both surface dose and distance that can predict the incidence of rectal bleeding in prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy. One hundred and forty-four patients treated with radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer were prospectively followed to record the incidence of grade ≥2 rectal bleeding. Radiotherapy plans were used to evaluate a dose-distance metric that accounts for the dose and its spatial distribution on the rectal surface, characterized by a logistic weighting function with slope a and inflection point d₀. This was compared to the effective dose obtained from dose-surface histograms, characterized by the parameter n which describes sensitivity to hot spots. The log-rank test was used to determine statistically significant (p < 0.05) cut-off values for the dose-distance metric and effective dose that predict for the occurrence of rectal bleeding. For the dose-distance metric, only d₀ = 25 and 30 mm combined with a > 5 led to statistical significant cut-offs. For the effective dose metric, only values of n in the range 0.07-0.35 led to statistically significant cut-offs. The proposed dose-distance metric is a predictor of rectal bleeding in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Both the dose-distance metric and the effective dose metric indicate that the incidence of grade ≥2 rectal bleeding is sensitive to localized damage to the rectal surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".