MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067516580 · doi:10.1118/1.3611985

SU‐E‐T‐34: Time Series Analysis of Skin Reactions during Heck and Neck IMRT

2011· article· en· W2067516580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diana L. Glennie, Lilian Doerwald-Munoz, Orest Ostapiak, M Patterson, Joseph E. Hayward, Theo Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neckErythemaNuclear medicineThermoluminescent dosimeterDosimetrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To quantitatively characterize the time sequence of skin erythema in head and neck patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments using optical reflectance spectroscopy. The overall goal is to identify patients who will develop extreme skin responses earlier than is possible by visual inspection alone. Methods: Ten (10) patients undergoing IMRT for the treatment of head and neck cancers were followed throughout the course of their intervention. Daily spectral skin reflectance measurements were made in order to track changes in the tissue optical properties. Weekly thermoluminescent detector (TLD) readings were performed in the measurement area to verify the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. Patients also completed a weekly questionnaire on factors that may have affected their skin reaction, and were visually inspected by a radiation oncologist.Results: The data were fit by a 2‐component principle component analysis (PCA) model. The preliminary results show that absorbed dose is the largest contributor to changes in the spectral reflectance and that those changes are seen primarily at wavelengths above 600 nm. Differences among patient skin responses were seen and accounted for in the model Conclusions: The PCA model indicates that it may be possible to predict a patientˈs spectral skin reflectance measurement on the final day of treatment given an initial spectrum and the dose. Therefore, further analysis of the data may yield a method of determining patient reactions before visible signs are detected. Partial funding through Varian, Inc. and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207