MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399227215

[Clinical experience of carbon ion radiotherapy for malignant tumors].

2006· article· en· W2399227215 on OpenAlexaff
Hitoshi Ishikawa, Hiroshi Tsuji, Hirohiko Tsujii

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon Ion RadiotherapyRelative biological effectivenessRadiation therapyLinear energy transferBragg peakSobpNuclear medicineSoft tissueMedicineIonMaterials scienceBeam (structure)RadiationRadiologyChemistryPhysicsOpticsProton therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The carbon ion (C-ion) beams provide unique advantageous biological and physical properties in radiotherapy (RT) for malignant tumors. C-ion beams have a high relative biological effectiveness (RBE) resulting from the high linear energy transfer (LET). In terms of their physical characteristics, C-ion beams exhibit a spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) and make for a better dose distribution of the target volume by specified beam modulations. Between June 1994 and August 2005, a total of 2,371 patients with malignant tumors were registered in phase I/II dose-escalation studies and clinical phase II trials using C-ion beams generated at Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC). In the initial dose-escalation studies, grade 3 or more late rectal complications had developed in some patients. However, the adverse effects were resolved because of the use of appropriate dose levels and modification of the radiation technique. C-ion beams can carry out hypofractionated radiotherapy with a large fraction dose and reduce the overall treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. They can also achieve better local tumor control even for radio-resistant tumors such as malignant melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma and bone and soft tissue sarcomas with minimal morbidity to the normal surrounding tissues.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.016

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207