Po-Poster - 03: A comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus 3D conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients whose rectal reaction to prior conventional radiotherapy was known
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: To evaluate the difference in biological and physical endpoints between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans and conformal plans for thirteen prostate cancer patients whose rectal reaction to prior radiation therapy was known (five patients experienced Grade 0 late rectal complications, six Grade 1, and two Grade 2). Materials and methods: Conformal plans were generated for each patient with Eclipse version 7.1.59 while the Helios inverse optimization component within Eclipse was applied for computation of the IMRT plans. Physical endpoints applied to compare the IMRT and conformal plans included the target dose statistics (minimum, maximum, and mean dose) as well as dose-volume histogram results for the normal tissues (rectum, bladder, and femoral heads). Biological endpoints used for comparison of the IMRT and conformal plans were tumour control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and probability of uncomplicated local control (P+). Rectal NTCP was computed for both RTOG Grade 3 or lower complications and severe rectal complications (severe proctitis, necrosis, stenosis, and fistula). Results: On average, IMRT increased the TCP by 2.8% and increased the TDI by 7.7%. The average NTCPs for the Grade 3 or lower rectal complications were 15.1% and 4.4% for the conformal and IMRT plans, respectively. For severe rectal complications the average NTCP decreased from 2.1% (conformal) to 1.2% (IMRT). The average P+ increased from 59.4% (conformal) to 69.9% (IMRT). Conclusions: IMRT was found to reduce the rectal NTCP for RTOG Grade 3 or lower complications to ∼0.36 times the NTCP for the conformal plan.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".