A comparison between<sup>125</sup>Iodine brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy in the management of juxtapapillary choroidal melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the treatment efficacy and radiation complications between (125)Iodine brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy in the management of juxtapapillary choroidal melanoma. METHODS: Consecutive juxtapapillary melanoma patients treated with radiotherapy were included. Patients were divided into two cohorts: patients treated with (125)Iodine brachytherapy and patients with stereotactic radiotherapy. Comparison included the rates postradiotherapy local recurrence, secondary enucleation, metastasis and radiotherapy complications. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the actuarial rates, and logrank test to compare between the estimates. RESULTS: We included 94 patients with juxtapapillary melanoma treated with radiotherapy. The brachytherapy cohort included 30 patients and stereotactic radiotherapy was 64. The median follow-up was 46 months in both cohorts. No statistically significant differences existed between the two cohorts on comparing pretreatment clinical data and tumour characteristics. On comparing treatment efficacy, the actuarial rates at 50 months for tumour recurrence were 11% and 7% (p=0.61), secondary enucleation was 11% and 21% (p=0.30) and for metastasis were 4% and 16% (p=0.11), respectively. On comparing treatment complications, the actuarial rates at 50 months for cataracts were 62% and 75% (p=0.1), for neovascular glaucoma 8% and 47% (p=0.002), for radiation retinopathy 59% and 89% (p=0.0001), and for radiation papillopathy 39% and 74% (p=0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both (125)Iodine brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy demonstrate comparable efficacy in the management of juxtapapillary choroidal melanoma. However, stereotactic radiotherapy shows statistically significant higher radiation-induced ocular morbidities at 4 years postradiotherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".