A Nationwide Survey in Japan of Palliative Radiotherapy for Bleeding in Gastrointestinal and Genitourinary Tumor Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In end-stage cancer, bleeding may markedly influence the patient's quality of life, and radiotherapy plays an important role in the control of the bleeding. In particular, there is no clear evidence of the benefit of palliative radiotherapy for cancers including gastric, rectal, and bladder cancers. A clarification of the current status of palliative radiotherapy for bleeding is needed. METHODS: A survey was conducted by the palliative radiotherapy working group of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG), focusing on annual cases of radiotherapy for tumors of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts and genitourinary organs (excluding the uterus) and applicable fractionated doses for three hypothetical patients. RESULTS: A total of 54 radiation oncologists at 43 facilities answered. Most of the facilities reported that they conducted hemostatic irradiation for less than one patient per year, though the median annual number of patients treated with radiotherapy in these facilities was 594. The most frequently observed doses per fraction for two of the hypothetical cases were 3.0 and 2.0 Gy. On the other hand, in each case, the numbers of fractions reported varied markedly among the respondents, ranging from 20 Gy in five fractions to over 30 fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Especially in gastric cancer, hemostatic irradiation is rarely performed in most facilities in Japan. An optimal dose fractionation has not been established. Thirty Gy in 10 fractions is one of the most frequently used regimens, but re-bleeding was observed in approximately one-third of the patients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".