A multi-national report on stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastases: Patient selection and follow-up*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastases is increasingly used with few evidenced-based guidelines. We conducted a survey to determine patient selection and follow-up practice patterns. Materials and methods Seven institutions from US, Canada, Europe, and Australia that recommend SBRT for oligometastases participated in a 72-item survey. Levels of agreement were categorized as strong (6-7 common responses), moderate (4-5), low (2-3), or no agreement. Results There was strong agreement for recommending SBRT for eradication of all detectable oligometastases with most members limiting the number of metastases to five (range 2-5) and three within a single organ (range 2-5). There was moderate agreement for recommending SBRT as consolidative therapy after systemic therapy. There was strong agreement for requiring adequate performance status and no concurrent chemotherapy. Additional areas of strong agreement included staging evaluations, primary diagnosis, target sites, and follow-up recommendations. Several differences emerged, including the use of SBRT for sarcoma oligometastases, treatment response evaluation, and which imaging should be performed during follow-up. Conclusion Significant commonalities and variations exist for patient selection and follow-up recommendations for SBRT for oligometastases. Information from this survey may serve to help clarify the current landscape.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it