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 OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Evans, Christine Hudon, Ervin B. Podgoršak, Carolyn Freeman

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReports of Practical Oncology & RadiotherapySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207