MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140476815 · doi:10.1259/bjr/68080920

Delineation of brain metastases on CT images for planning radiosurgery: concerns regarding accuracy

2004· article· en· W2140476815 on OpenAlexaff
K. Sidhu, Patrick Cooper, R. Ramani, M. Schwartz, E. Franssen, Phillip Davey

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyCollimatorRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conformal radiotherapy requires confidence that the images used for target delineation accurately reflect the pathological dimensions of the target. Radiosurgery, which is a conformal radiotherapy technique, is often used to treat brain metastases. The images of brain metastases can be affected by the method of image acquisition. A prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of delay on CT images of brain metastases selected for radiosurgical treatment. A median delay from contrast administration of 65 min resulted in an increase in the volume of the metastases in 86% of cases when compared with the volumes of the same metastases determined from CT images acquired immediately following the administration of contrast medium. The magnitude of the increase in volume was sufficient to cause radiosurgery planners to select larger collimator sizes for radiosurgery plans based on the delayed CT images in 92% of cases. No significant intraobserver or interobserver variation was found in the group of radiosurgery planners. Differences in image acquisition may account in part for the differences in local control reported in the radiosurgical treatment of brain metastases.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207