Intracranial germinoma: On whole‐ventricular irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A current focus in the treatment of intracranial germinoma is on decreasing the volume of radiotherapy. We studied the theoretical impact of selecting different target volumes and treatment techniques. PROCEDURE: Retrospectively, five cases of localized germinoma were identified. Treatment plans were produced for three target volumes: involved field plans (i.e., targeting only gross disease), whole brain plans, and plans of increasing complexity targeting the ventricles (lateral-opposed, four-field and intensity-modulated (IMRT)). A second series of patients was processed similarly except that no involved field plans were produced. RESULTS: When target volumes were compared, normal structures were substantially spared by ventricular irradiation but maximally spared by involved field radiation. When treatment techniques were assessed for ventricular irradiation, the greatest gain in tissue sparing occurred when switching from two to four fields. This gain was at the higher doses levels at the expense of an increased volume of tissue irradiated to lower doses. IMRT plans always spared a small additional amount of normal brain. Whole ventricular plans were compared to similar plans excluding the fourth ventricle. Whole brain dose was only improved by 4-6% by excluding the fourth ventricle. CONCLUSIONS: The substitution of whole-ventricular irradiation for whole-brain irradiation can spare a significant amount of normal tissue, thus providing a theoretical advantage with respect to the risk of late effects. Ventricular irradiation is best achieved with at least a four-field 3D configuration, and optimally through an IMRT plan. Exclusion of the fourth ventricle in the target volume had only a minimal impact on normal tissue doses.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".