SU‐F‐T‐113: Inherent Functional Dependence of Spinal Cord Doses of Variable Irradiated Volumes in Spine SBRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Spinal cord tolerance for SBRT has been recommended for the maximum point dose level or at irradiated volumes such as 0.35 mL or 10% of contoured volumes. In this study, we investigated an inherent functional relationship that associates these dose surrogates for irradiated spinal cord volumes of up to 3.0 mL. Methods: A hidden variable termed as Effective Dose Radius (EDR) was formulated based on a dose fall‐off model to correlate dose at irradiated spinal cord volumes ranging from 0 mL (point maximum) to 3.0 mL. A cohort of 15 spine SBRT cases was randomly selected to derive an EDR‐parameterized formula. The mean prescription dose for the studied cases was 21.0±8.0 Gy (range, 10–40Gy) delivered in 3±1 fractions with target volumes of 39.1 ± 70.6 mL. Linear regression and variance analysis were performed for the fitting parameters of variable EDR values. Results: No direct correlation was found between the dose at maximum point and doses at variable spinal cord volumes. For example, Pearson R2 = 0.643 and R2= 0.491 were obtained when correlating the point maximum dose with the spinal cord dose at 1 mL and 3 mL, respectively. However, near perfect correlation (R2 ≥0.99) was obtained when corresponding parameterized EDRs. Specifically, Pearson R2= 0.996 and R2 = 0.990 were obtained when correlating EDR (maximum point dose) with EDR (dose at 1 mL) and EDR(dose at 3 mL), respectively. As a result, high confidence level look‐up tables were established to correlate spinal cord doses at the maximum point to any finite irradiated volumes. Conclusion: An inherent functional relationship was demonstrated for spine SBRT. Such a relationship unifies dose surrogates at variable cord volumes and proves that a single dose surrogate (e.g. point maximum dose) is mathematically sufficient in constraining the overall spinal cord dose tolerance for SBRT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".