Workshop on Partial Breast Irradiation: State of the Art and the Science, Bethesda, MD, December 8-10, 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast conserving surgery followed by radiation therapy has been accepted as an alternative to mastectomy in the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer. Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in a variety of radiation techniques designed to treat only the portion of the breast deemed to be at high risk for local recurrence (partial-breast irradiation [PBI]) and to shorten the duration of treatment (accelerated partial-breast irradiation [APBI]). To consider issues regarding the equivalency of the various radiation therapy approaches and to address future needs for research, quality assurance, and training, the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Radiation Research Program, hosted a Workshop on PBI in December 2002. Although 5- to 7-year outcome data on patients treated with PBI and APBI are now becoming available, many issues remain unresolved, including clinical and pathologic selection criteria, radiation dose and fractionation and how they relate to the standard fractionation for whole breast irradiation, appropriate target volume, local control within the untreated ipsilateral breast tissue, and overall survival. This Workshop report defines the issues in relation to PBI and APBI, recommends parameters for consideration in clinical trials and for reporting of results, serves to enhance dialogue among the advocates of the various radiation techniques, and emphasizes the importance of education and training in regard to results of PBI and APBI as they become emerging clinical treatments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".