Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review addresses the latest advances in radiation treatment for cancer pain. RECENT FINDINGS: There is reluctance worldwide to adopt single fraction radiotherapy as standard practice. This is well summarized by a review article reporting on surveys on practice patterns among radiation oncologists worldwide. It was suggested by the Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial, however, that patients with neuropathic pain may need multiple treatments. Patients with bone metastases may outlive the benefits of palliative radiation and require re-irradiation. A recent report from the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study confirmed the effectiveness of re-irradiation in both responders and nonresponders to initial radiation therapy. Effects of palliative radiotherapy on function and quality of life have been explored in various studies but with disparate conclusions. This may stem from a lack of a good, patient-based instrument with which to measure quality of life. A project by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group is currently under way to develop a bone metastases module. Patients receiving single fraction radiotherapy may be at greater risk for pain flare. SUMMARY: Patients with uncomplicated bone metastases can be effectively palliated with single fraction radiotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".