Poster — Thur Eve — 55: Monte Carlo simulations of variations in planned dose distributions in a prostate patient population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical outcome studies with clear and objective endpoints are necessary to make informed radiotherapy treatment decisions. Commonly, clinical outcomes are established after lengthy and costly clinical trials are performed and the data are analyzed and published. One the challenges with obtaining meaningful data from clinical trials is that by the time the information gets to the medical profession the results may be less clinically relevant than when the trial began, An alternative approach is to estimate clinical outcomes through patient population modeling. We are developing a mathematical tool that uses Monte Carlo techniques to simulate variations in planned and delivered dose distributions of prostate patients receiving radiotherapy. Ultimately, our simulation will calculate a distribution of Tumor Control Probabilities (TCPs) for a population of patients treated under a given protocol. Such distributions can serve as a metric for comparing different treatment modalities, planning and setup approaches, and machine parameter settings or tolerances with respect to outcomes on broad patient populations. It may also help researchers understand differences one might expect to find before actually doing the clinical trial. As a first step and for the focus of this abstract we wanted to see if we could answer the question: "Can a population of dose distributions of prostate patients be accurately modeled by a set of randomly generated Gaussian functions?" Our results have demonstrated that using a set of randomly generated Gaussian functions can simulate a distribution of prostate patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".