MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103698695 · doi:10.1586/14737140.7.1.89

Review of image-guided radiation therapy

2006· review· en· W2103698695 on OpenAlex
David A. Jaffray, Patrick A. Kupelian, T. Djemil, Roger M. Macklis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingImage-guided radiation therapyMedical imagingMedical physicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided radiation therapy represents a new paradigm in the field of high-precision radiation medicine. A synthesis of recent technological advances in medical imaging and conformal radiation therapy, image-guided radiation therapy represents a further expansion in the recent push for maximizing targeting capabilities with high-intensity radiation dose deposition limited to the true target structures, while minimizing radiation dose deposited in collateral normal tissues. By improving this targeting discrimination, the therapeutic ratio may be enhanced significantly. The principle behind image-guided radiation therapy relies heavily on the acquisition of serial image datasets using a variety of medical imaging platforms, including computed tomography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. These anatomic and volumetric image datasets are now being augmented through the addition of functional imaging. The current interest in positron-emitted tomography represents a good example of this sort of functional information now being correlated with anatomic localization. As the sophistication of imaging datasets grows, the precise 3D and 4D positions of the target and normal structures become of great relevance, leading to a recent exploration of real- or near-real-time positional replanning of the radiation treatment localization coordinates. This 'adaptive' radiotherapy explicitly recognizes that both tumors and normal tissues change position in time and space during a multiweek course of treatment, and even within a single treatment fraction. As targets and normal tissues change, the attenuation of radiation beams passing through these structures will also change, thus adding an additional level of imprecision in targeting unless these changes are taken into account. All in all, image-guided radiation therapy can be seen as further progress in the development of minimally invasive highly targeted cytotoxic therapies with the goal of substituting remote technologies for direct contact on the part of an operator or surgeon. Although data demonstrating clear-cut superiority of this new high-tech paradigm compared with more conventional radiation treatment approaches are scant, the emergence of preliminary data from several early studies shows that interest in this field is broad based and robust. As outcomes data accumulate, it is very likely that this field will continue to expand greatly. Although at present most of the work is being performed at major academic centers, the enthusiastic adoption of many of the devices and approaches being developed for this field suggest a rapid penetration into the community and the use of the technology by teams of specialists in the fields of radiation medicine, radiation physics and various branches of surgery. A recent survey of practitioners predicted very widespread adoption within the next 10 years.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.384 · 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