MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461551985 · doi:10.1118/1.4956252

SU‐F‐T‐116: Predicting IQ and the Risk of Hearing Loss Following Proton Versus Photon Radiotherapy for Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients

2016· article· en· W2461551985 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique Fortin, Andrea K. Ng, Derek S. Tsang, Michael Sharpe, Normand Laperrière, David Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniopharyngiomaMedulloblastomaProton therapyMedicineHearing lossRadiation therapyNuclear medicineEpendymomaRadiologyAudiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The increased sparing of normal tissues in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to photon intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in brain tumor treatments should translate into improved neurocognitive outcomes. Models were used to estimate the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the risk of hearing loss 5 years post radiotherapy and to compare outcomes of proton against photon in pediatric brain tumors. Methods: Patients who had received radical IMRT were randomly selected from our retrospective database: 10 cases each of craniopharyngioma, ependymoma and medulloblastoma, and 20 cases of glioma. The existing planning CT and contours were used to generate IMPT plans. The RBE‐corrected dose to brain structures and cochleas were calculated for both IMPT and IMRT. A model was applied to estimate IQ using a Markov chain Monte Carlo technique. The reported incidence of hearing loss as a function of cochlear dose was used to estimate the rate of occurrence. Results: The average brain dose was less in all IMPT plans compared to IMRT: ranging from a 6.7% reduction (P=0.003) in the case of medulloblastoma to 38% (P=0.007) for craniopharyngioma. This dose reduction translated into a gain in IQ of 1.9 points on average for protons vs photons for the whole cohort at 5 years post‐treatment (P=0.011). In terms of specific diseases, the gains in IQ ranged from 0.8 points for medulloblastoma, to 2.7 points for craniopharyngioma. Hearing loss probability was evaluated on a per‐ear‐basis and was found to be systematically less for proton versus photon: overall 2.9% versus 7.2% (P < 0.001). Conclusion: A novel method was developed to predict neurocognitive outcomes in pediatric brain tumor patients on a case‐by‐case basis. A modest gain in IQ was systematically observed for proton in all patients. Given the uncertainties within the model used and our reinterpretation, these gains may be underestimated.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207