Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the literature on the use of margins in radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer, focusing on different options for image guidance (IG) and technical issues. The search in PubMed database was limited to include studies that involved external beam radiotherapy of the intact prostate. Post-prostatectomy studies, brachytherapy and particle therapy were excluded. Each article was characterized according to the IG strategy used: positioning on external marks using room lasers, bone anatomy and soft tissue match, usage of fiducial markers, electromagnetic tracking and adapted delivery. A lack of uniformity in margin selection among institutions was evident from the review. In general, introduction of pre- and in-treatment IG was associated with smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins, but there was a lack of definitive experimental/clinical studies providing robust information on selection of exact PTV values. In addition, there is a lack of comparative research regarding the cost-benefit ratio of the different strategies: insertion of fiducial markers or electromagnetic transponders facilitates prostate gland localization but at a price of invasive procedure; frequent pre-treatment imaging increases patient in-room time, dose and labour; online plan adaptation should improve radiation delivery accuracy but requires fast and precise computation. Finally, optimal protocols for quality assurance procedures need to be established.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".