MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106530353 · doi:10.1118/1.4928141

Realistic respiratory motion margins for external beam partial breast irradiation

2015· article· en· W2106530353 on OpenAlexafffund
Leigh Conroy, Sarah Quirk, Wendy Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsIrradiationPhysicsBeam (structure)MedicineNuclear medicineMedical physicsOpticsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Respiratory margins for partial breast irradiation (PBI) have been largely based on geometric observations, which may overestimate the margin required for dosimetric coverage. In this study, dosimetric population-based respiratory margins and margin formulas for external beam partial breast irradiation are determined. METHODS: Volunteer respiratory data and anterior-posterior (AP) dose profiles from clinical treatment plans of 28 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) PBI patient plans were used to determine population-based respiratory margins. The peak-to-peak amplitudes (A) of realistic respiratory motion data from healthy volunteers were scaled from A = 1 to 10 mm to create respiratory motion probability density functions. Dose profiles were convolved with the respiratory probability density functions to produce blurred dose profiles accounting for respiratory motion. The required margins were found by measuring the distance between the simulated treatment and original dose profiles at the 95% isodose level. RESULTS: The symmetric dosimetric respiratory margins to cover 90%, 95%, and 100% of the simulated treatment population were 1.5, 2, and 4 mm, respectively. With patient set up at end exhale, the required margins were larger in the anterior direction than the posterior. For respiratory amplitudes less than 5 mm, the population-based margins can be expressed as a fraction of the extent of respiratory motion. The derived formulas in the anterior/posterior directions for 90%, 95%, and 100% simulated population coverage were 0.45A/0.25A, 0.50A/0.30A, and 0.70A/0.40A. The differences in formulas for different population coverage criteria demonstrate that respiratory trace shape and baseline drift characteristics affect individual respiratory margins even for the same average peak-to-peak amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: A methodology for determining population-based respiratory margins using real respiratory motion patterns and dose profiles in the AP direction was described. It was found that the currently used respiratory margin of 5 mm in partial breast irradiation may be overly conservative for many 3DCRT PBI patients. Amplitude alone was found to be insufficient to determine patient-specific margins: individual respiratory trace shape and baseline drift both contributed to the dosimetric target coverage. With respiratory coaching, individualized respiratory margins smaller than the full extent of motion could reduce planning target volumes while ensuring adequate coverage under respiratory motion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207