Poster - Thur Eve - 60: Clinical use of a 3D BED-based assessment tool for patient retreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A protocol was developed which enables the routine clinical use of a 3D biological equivalent dose (BED) plan sum for retreated patients. This protocol is used for patients who are to be retreated, where one of the plans is in a standard dose fractionation and the other is in a hypofractionated regime. A deformable registration is applied to the original dose map to the subsequent CT scan. An in-house program has been developed to sum the registered dose between original and subsequent dose plans. After the sum is accomplished, the 3D BED sum is converted to dose through a 3D voxel by voxel solution of the linear quadratic BED equation. The use of BED based 3D dose summation for replanned patients gives an improved picture of the overall dose distribution for situations where the daily dose is different in both plans. This tool allows a more thorough evaluation of the plan sum and provides an alternative to the worst case BED scenario using point maximum statistics, giving a potential for better PTV coverage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.010 |
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".