Changing management of localized prostate cancer: a comparison survey of Ontario radiation oncologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Annual genitourinary radiation oncology meetings aim to assist in the dissemination of knowledge that may affect current practice. We aim to measure changes in practice approaches that have occurred while these meetings have been conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A previously published survey from 2002 was sent to all genitourinary radiation oncologists in Ontario. Six prostate cancer patient scenarios were used: three definitive (low risk, intermediate risk, high risk), and three post-operative (extracapsular extension, margin positive, slowly rising PSA). There were 21 responders from seven cancer centers. RESULTS: Using biological equivalent dose (BED), there is significant dose escalation in 2005, particularly for intermediate risk patients (mean BED 73.0 Gy2 in 2002 versus 76.1 Gy2 in 2005, p=0.0003). There has been a corresponding move away from the use of neoadjuvant hormones in these patients (2002: 62% versus 2005: 24%, p=0.0097). More accurate prostate localization using fiducials is more common, leading to less use of rectal barium and urethrograms in the simulation process. In the definitive settings there is more utilization of rigid immobilization and more complex treatment delivery including intensity modulated radiotherapy. There is also greater use of multileaf collimation, electronic portal imaging and dose volume histograms in 2005 compared with 2002. CONCLUSIONS: There have been significant changes in the way that prostate cancer is managed with radiotherapy in Ontario between 2002 and 2005. Dose escalation and more complex treatment planning is widely evident.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".