Evaluation of Single-Field Electron Beams for Postmastectomy Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:electron beams have been extensively used in postmastectomy radiotherapy due to its homogenous dose at the surface followed by sharp fall-off sparing the underlying tissue. Multiple electron fields or electron photon mix were the techniques commonly used. An old study reported the successful use of single-field electron beams with beam energy of 20 MeV. Yet the potential risks of the organs at risk were not clearly shown. Objectives:the objectives of this study were to assess the possibility of applying single-field electron beams in postmastectomy radiotherapy in terms of: the dose distribution in the target, the volume of organs that receive a certain threshold dose and the volume of organs that receive low doses of radiation. Materials and Methods: the Monte Carlo codes of EGSnrc were used to simulate electron beams of different energies and gantry angles. The resulting dose files were used by XSTING to generate dose volume histograms, which were used for evaluation. Results and Discussions: the target coverage was quite poor in most of the studied scenarios. Improving the target coverage was at the expense of irradiating the lung and heart with unacceptable dose values. Conclusion and Recommendations: Single field electron beams cannot be used for postmastectomy radiotherapy. Multiple electron fields or photon electron mix are necessary and need to be assessed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".