The American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for plaque brachytherapy of uveal melanoma and retinoblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) guidelines for plaque brachytherapy of choroidal melanoma and retinoblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An international multicenter Ophthalmic Oncology Task Force (OOTF) was assembled to include 47 radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and ophthalmic oncologists from 10 countries. The ABS-OOTF produced collaborative guidelines, based on their eye cancer-specific clinical experience and knowledge of the literature. This work was reviewed and approved by the ABS Board of Directors as well as within the journal's peer-reivew process. RESULTS: The ABS-OOTF reached consensus that ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy is best performed in subspecialty brachytherapy centers. Quality assurance, methods of plaque construction, and dosimetry should be consistent with the 2012 joint guidelines of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and ABS. Implantation of plaque sources should be performed by subspecialty-trained surgeons. Although there exist select restrictions related to tumor size and location, the ABS-OOTF agreed that most melanomas of the iris, ciliary body, and choroid could be treated with plaque brachytherapy. The ABS-OOTF reached consensus that tumors with gross orbital extension and blind painful eyes and those with no light perception vision are unsuitable for brachytherapy. In contrast, only select retinoblastomas are eligible for plaque brachytherapy. Prescription doses, dose rates, treatment durations, and clinical methods are described. CONCLUSIONS: Plaque brachytherapy is an effective eye and vision-sparing method to treat patients with intraocular tumors. Practitioners are encouraged to use ABS-OOTF guidelines to enhance their practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".