Poster — Thur Eve — 13: Inter‐Fraction Target Movement in Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the setup variations over the treatment courses of 113 patients with intact prostate treated with 78Gy/39fx. Institutional standard bladder and bowel preparation and image guidance protocols were used in CT simulation and treatment. The RapidArc treatment plans were optimized in Varian Eclipse treatment planning system and delivered on Varian 2100X Clinacs equipped with On‐Board Imager to localize the target before beam‐on. The setup variations were calculated in terms of mean and standard deviation of couch shifts. No correlation was observed between the mean shift and standard deviation over the treatment course and patient age, initial prostate volume and rectum size. The mean shifts in the first and last 5 fractions are highly correlated (P < 10−10) while the correlation of the standard deviations cannot be determined. The Mann‐Kendall tests indicate trends of the mean daily Ant‐Post and Sup‐Inf shifts of the group. The target is inferior by ∼1mm to the planned position when the treatment starts and moves superiorly, approaching the planned position at 10th fraction, and then gradually moves back inferiorly by ∼1mm in the remain fractions. In the Ant‐Post direction, the prostate gradually moves posteriorly during the treatment course from a mean shift of ∼2.5mm in the first fraction to ∼1mm in the last fraction. It may be related to a systematic rectum size change in the progress of treatment. The biased mean shifts in Ant‐Post and Sup‐Inf direction of most patients suggest systematically larger rectum and smaller bladder during the treatment than at CT simulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".