MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of intra and interfractional organ motion during adjuvant radiochemotherapy in gastric cancer

2007· article· en· W2247663207 on OpenAlexaff
B. Wysocka, Zahra Kassam, G.R. Lockwood, James D. Brierley, L. Dawson, Jolie Ringash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiaphragm (acoustics)PancreasHilum (anatomy)Nuclear medicineRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningStomachRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

15132 Background: Adjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) in gastric cancer improves survival, however acute toxicity is substantial. Toxicity may be improved with three-dimensional (3D) RT, but organ motion must be considered in planning target volume (PTV) delineation. Methods: Participants (n=22) had baseline free breathing planning CT (CT0) with BodyFix immobilization. Abdominal CTs in free breathing (FB), inhale (I) and exhale (E) states were obtained in weeks 1, 3 and 5 of RT. Datasets were fused to CT0 in Pinnacle3 6.2 planning system using bone registration. Volumes of interest (VOIs) [right (R) and left (L) kidney, liver, stomach, pancreas, celiac axis and porta hepatis] were contoured and points of interest (POIs) were placed at each centre of mass. POIs were manually placed at the left dome of diaphragm and splenic hilum. Organ motion was determined by the difference between POI positions in cranial-caudal (CC), anterior-posterior (AP) and right-left (RL) directions. Maximal respiratory motion was determined from the difference between I and E positions. Interfractional displacement in organs relative to bones at weeks 1, 3 and 5 was determined on FB scans as compared to baseline. Results: Interfractional organ motion was maximal in CC direction with median absolute displacements (range) in mm of: splenic hilum 10 (0–52), stomach 8 (0.4–27.2), liver 7.4 (0.5–23.6), diaphragm 6 (0–28), L kidney 5.7 (0–37.3), R kidney 5.3 (0.2–35.3), pancreas 5.7 (0.3–29.1), porta hepatis 4 (0–14) and celiac axis 1.7 (0–9.1). Median interfraction displacement (range) in CC, AP and RL in mm for all organs was: 5.7 (0- 52), 2.1 (0–23.1), 2.3 (0–15.9). Positional difference between I and E state (median for all organs) was: 16 mm CC, 5.9 mm AP, and 1.7 mm RL with maximal individual breathing excursions of 59.9, 30.2 and 21.1 mm, respectively. Conclusions: Interfraction organ displacement relative to bones can be quantified and used in the safe design of 3D conformal radiotherapy. Respiratory motion can be substantial in some individuals. Accounting for organ motion in 3D RT planning is necessary and may reduce the toxicity of treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.429 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→