Image guidance procedures in radiotherapy for prostate cancer and the influence of body mass index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To investigate possible optimisation of the image guidance procedure for the prostate cancer patients with respect to imaging frequency and patient body mass index (BMI). Methods The 6,085 setup correction shifts and BMI for 216 prostate cancer patients treated on tomotherapy units in two centres were analysed. Margins needed to account for inter-fraction target motion with daily only automatic correction and with automatic and manual corrections during one, three or five first fractions as a reference for further treatment without imaging were calculated. Results The planning target volume margin calculated for the daily automatic correction only scheme was significantly lower than the margins calculated for the image guidance limited to a few initial fractions. Manual corrections after automatic fusion were more important for patients with higher BMI. On average, the patients with normal BMI had manual correction shift of 0·7 mm in anterioposterior direction, while overweight and obese patients required, correspondingly, the shifts of 1·3 and 1·4 mm. Conclusion Overweight and obese patients require daily imaging with time saving available by performing automatic kV/MV computed tomography registration only. The patients with normal BMI may be treated with imaging guidance during a few initial treatment fractions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".