MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-spine bone metastases--a review of the literature.

2016· review· en· W2197776653 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Bedard, Rachel McDonald, Ian Poon, Darby Erler, Hany Soliman, Patrick Cheung, Hans T. Chung, William Chu, Andrew Loblaw, Edward Chow, Arjun Sahgal

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointRadiation therapyOverall survivalInclusion and exclusion criteriaRadiosurgeryRandomized controlled trialRadiologyOncologySurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has the ability to deliver significantly higher biologically equivalent doses (BED) compared to conventional radiation treatment. The main goal of SBRT is to improve local tumor control while reducing pain. The side effects however may be greater than those of conventional treatment. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted and articles pertaining to studies of SBRT in non-spine bone metastases were included. Data on outcomes and toxicities were collected in addition to inclusion and exclusion criteria for each study. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included in this review. Very rarely were grade 3 and 4 toxicities reported. Endpoints for the studies varied significantly, which made conclusions of overall local control and progression free survival near impossible. In studies that reported local control rates, these rates were all greater than 85%. Progression free survival varied significantly between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of consistency in endpoint definitions, it is difficult to compare outcomes across trials. There is a need for consensus in endpoint definitions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207