MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149381420 · doi:10.1118/1.4939260

A validated tumor control probability model based on a meta‐analysis of low, intermediate, and high‐risk prostate cancer patients treated by photon, proton, or carbon‐ion radiotherapy

2016· article· en· W2149381420 on OpenAlexaff
Seán Walsh, Erik Roelofs, Peter Kuess, Philippe Lambin, Bleddyn Jones, Dietmar Georg, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineRadiation therapyPopulationDosimetryNuclear medicineProton therapyStatisticsOncologyInternal medicineMathematicsCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A fully heterogeneous population averaged mechanistic tumor control probability (TCP) model is appropriate for the analysis of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This has been accomplished for EBRT photon treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Extending the TCP model for low and high-risk patients would be beneficial in terms of overall decision making. Furthermore, different radiation treatment modalities such as protons and carbon-ions are becoming increasingly available. Consequently, there is a need for a complete TCP model. METHODS: A TCP model was fitted and validated to a primary endpoint of 5-year biological no evidence of disease clinical outcome data obtained from a review of the literature for low, intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer patients (5218 patients fitted, 1088 patients validated), treated by photons, protons, or carbon-ions. The review followed the preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. Treatment regimens include standard fractionation and hypofractionation treatments. Residual analysis and goodness of fit statistics were applied. RESULTS: The TCP model achieves a good level of fit overall, linear regression results in a p-value of <0.000 01 with an adjusted-weighted-R(2) value of 0.77 and a weighted root mean squared error (wRMSE) of 1.2%, to the fitted clinical outcome data. Validation of the model utilizing three independent datasets obtained from the literature resulted in an adjusted-weighted-R(2) value of 0.78 and a wRMSE of less than 1.8%, to the validation clinical outcome data. The weighted mean absolute residual across the entire dataset is found to be 5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: This TCP model fitted and validated to clinical outcome data, appears to be an appropriate model for the inclusion of all clinical prostate cancer risk categories, and allows evaluation of current EBRT modalities with regard to tumor control prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.037
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207