A stochastic model for tumor geometry evolution during radiation therapy in cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop mathematical models to predict the evolution of tumor geometry in cervical cancer undergoing radiation therapy. METHODS: The authors develop two mathematical models to estimate tumor geometry change: a Markov model and an isomorphic shrinkage model. The Markov model describes tumor evolution by investigating the change in state (either tumor or nontumor) of voxels on the tumor surface. It assumes that the evolution follows a Markov process. Transition probabilities are obtained using maximum likelihood estimation and depend on the states of neighboring voxels. The isomorphic shrinkage model describes tumor shrinkage or growth in terms of layers of voxels on the tumor surface, instead of modeling individual voxels. The two proposed models were applied to data from 29 cervical cancer patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and then compared to a constant volume approach. Model performance was measured using sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The Markov model outperformed both the isomorphic shrinkage and constant volume models in terms of the trade-off between sensitivity (target coverage) and specificity (normal tissue sparing). Generally, the Markov model achieved a few percentage points in improvement in either sensitivity or specificity compared to the other models. The isomorphic shrinkage model was comparable to the Markov approach under certain parameter settings. Convex tumor shapes were easier to predict. CONCLUSIONS: By modeling tumor geometry change at the voxel level using a probabilistic model, improvements in target coverage and normal tissue sparing are possible. Our Markov model is flexible and has tunable parameters to adjust model performance to meet a range of criteria. Such a model may support the development of an adaptive paradigm for radiation therapy of cervical cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".