MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081644359 · doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2013.05.002

Institutional experience with a rotational total skin electron irradiation (RTSEI) technique—A three decade review (1981–2012)

2013· review· en· W2081644359 on OpenAlex
Michael D. Evans, Christine Hudon, Ervin B. Podgoršak, Carolyn Freeman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradiationLinear particle acceleratorElectronDose rateDosimetryMedical physicsNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsMedicineBeam (structure)OpticsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) for patients with cutaneous lymphomas is technically challenging, and numerous approaches have been developed to overcome the many field matching problems associated with such a large and complex treatment volume. Since 1981 we have delivered TSEI using a rotational total skin electron irradiation (RTSEI) technique in conjunction with patch, treat and boost fields in order to provide complete skin and dose coverage. Initially we used a 6 MeV electron beam at an extended source-skin distance (SSD) on a modified linear accelerator. More recently we began using a high dose rate electron mode on a commercially available linear accelerator. The RTSEI technique allows the delivery of a seamless surface dose to the majority of the patient's skin surface in a single treatment. In this review paper we present our three-decade experience with the technical development, dosimetry, treatment delivery and clinical outcomes of our RTSEI technique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.400 · 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