MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2464357740 · doi:10.1118/1.4956991

SU-G-TeP1-01: A Simulation Study to Investigate Maximum Allowable Deformations of Implant Geometry Before Plan Objectives Are Violated in Prostate HDR Brachytherapy

2016· article· en· W2464357740 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Babier, Chandra P. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyRadiation treatment planningProstateNuclear medicineImaging phantomProstate brachytherapyDosimetryMedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In prostate HDR brachytherapy dose distributions are highly sensitive to changes in prostate volume and catheter displacements. We investigate the maximum deformations in implant geometry before planning objectives are violated. Methods: A typical prostate Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy reference plan was calculated on the Oncentra planning system, which used CT images from a tissue equivalent prostate phantom (CIRS Model 053S) embedded inside a pelvis wax phantom. The prostate was deformed and catheters were displaced in simulations using a code written in MATLAB. For each deformation dose distributions were calculated, based on TG43 methods, using the MATLAB code. The calculations were validated through comparison with Oncentra calculations for the reference plan, and agreed within 0.12%SD and 0.3%SD for dose and volume, respectively. Isotropic prostate volume deformations of up to +34% to −27% relative to its original volume, and longitudinal catheter displacements of 7.5 mm in superior and inferior directions were simulated. Planning objectives were based on American Brachytherapy Society guidelines for prostate and urethra volumes. A plan violated the planning objectives when less than 90% of the prostate volume received the prescribed dose or higher (V100), or the urethral volume receiving 125% of prescribed dose or higher was more than 1 cc (U125). Lastly, the dose homogeneity index (DHI=1-V150/V100) was evaluated; a plan was considered sub-optimal when the DHI fell below 0.62. Results and Conclusion: Planning objectives were violated when the prostate expanded by 10.7±0.5% or contracted by 11.0±0.2%; objectives were also violated when catheters were displaced by 4.15±0.15 mm and 3.70±0.15 mm in the superior and inferior directions, respectively. The DHI changes did not affect the plan optimality, except in the case of prostate compression. In general, catheter displacements have a significantly larger impact on plan optimality than prostate volume changes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 Physics→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→