Quality Assurance in the Prospective Multi-institutional Trial on Definitive Radiotherapy Using High-dose-rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Individual Case Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with the radiotherapy protocol of a multi-institutional prospective study (JAROG0401/JROSG04-2), which investigated the efficacy and toxicity of definitive radiotherapy using high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) for early-stage uterine cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Individual case reviews (ICRs) were performed on all 60 study participants. Radiotherapy data were submitted to the quality assurance (QA) committee, which performed ICRs on 16 QA items according to previously selected criteria. The items focused on quality of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), HDR-ICBT and both. Each item was determined to be either acceptable or a deviation. The QA committee performed ICR three times as planned, two during the patient accrual and the final one just after the final patient accrued. The QA results of the first and second reviews were reported back to the investigators after each ICR. RESULTS: In 40 cases (67%), all 16 QA items were classified as acceptable. One deviation was found in 16 cases, two deviations were identified in 3 cases and three deviations were noted in 1 case. The most frequently observed deviation was missing the rules for determining point A (10 cases). The items described by quantitative values, such as prescribed doses, certain time intervals and overall treatment time, were well followed. The proportion of deviations gradually decreased during the ICR process. CONCLUSIONS: The present ICR demonstrated the favorable radiotherapy compliance with the JAROG0401/JROSG04-2 protocol. The QA process using ICRs can potentially be used to improve the quality of radiotherapy, including HDR-ICBT in the multi-institutional prospective studies for cervical cancer.
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 | 0.133 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".