MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087332738 · doi:10.3109/02841861003649232

Population TCP estimators in case of heterogeneous irradiation: A new discussion of an old problem

2010· article· en· W2087332738 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Stavrev, Colleen Schinkel, Nadia Stavreva, Brad Warkentin, Marco Carlone, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionPopulationGeneralizationEstimatorApplied mathematicsMathematicsMedicineStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the capacity of two phenomenological expressions to describe the population tumor response in case of a heterogeneous irradiation of the tumor. The generalization of the individual tumor control probability (TCP) models to include the case of a heterogeneous irradiation is a trivial problem. However, an analytical solution that results in a closed form population TCP formula for the heterogeneous case is, unfortunately, a very complex mathematical problem. Therefore we applied a numerical approach to the problem. METHOD: Pseudo-experimental data sets are constructed through the generation of dose distributions and population TCP data obtained by a numerical solution of a multi-dimensional integral over an individual TCP model. The capacity of the following two phenomenological - Poisson and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) based - TCP expressions: [Figure: see text] to describe the population tumor response in case of heterogeneous irradiation is investigated through their fitting to the psuedo-experimental data sets. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. While both expressions produce statistically acceptable fits to the pseudo-experimental data within 2% TCP error band, the use of the second expression is preferable since it produces considerably better fits to the data sets.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207