MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2077375774 · doi:10.1118/1.2244702

Sci‐Sat AM (2) Therapy‐06: Clinical experience with adaptive radiation therapy for lung cancer with tomotherapy

2006· article· en· W2077375774 on OpenAlexaff
Slav Yartsev, Glenn Bauman, Edward Yu, R. Dar, George Rodrigues, J Chen, Jerry Battista, Jake Van Dyk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyRadiation therapyMedicineRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineMedical imagingLung cancerImage-guided radiation therapyRadiologyImage registrationMedical physicsComputer scienceComputer visionOncologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helical tomotherapy (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI) is a new form of image‐guided radiation therapy that combines features of a linear accelerator and a helical CT scanner. Helical tomotherapy allows megavoltage computer tomography (MVCT) imaging of the patient immediately prior to treatment. The MVCT images are compared to the treatment planning (kilovoltage) CT images at the operator station in order to ensure correct alignment to the planning target volume and critical structures. We report clinical experience with our technique for adaptive therapy in two lung cancer cases where the delivery fluence modifications were considered imperative due to concerns regarding changes in patient anatomy. Daily MVCT imaging with helical tomotherapy co‐registered with the planning kVCT study can provide feedback allowing correction of patient position due to systematic or random error or organ motion. In the case of lung cancer, the gross tumour volume is clearly visible on MVCT due to high tissue contrast in the lung facilitating daily positioning correction for small setup or organ location variations. If the target has dramatically changed in its shape or location and/or other major anatomy changes occur, the MVCT study can be used for re‐calculation of the expected dose distribution which is then compared to the originally planned one. If the difference is considered clinically significant, a repeat kVCT study can be performed and a new plan is developed for further treatment, thus allowing the patient specific adaptive radiotherapy to account for anatomic changes during treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→