Sci‐Fri PM: Radiation Therapy, Planning, Imaging, and Special Techniques ‐ 10: Results from Canada Wide Survey on Total Body Irradiation Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Total Body Irradiation (TBI) is delivered to a relatively small number of patients with a variety of techniques; it has been a challenge to develop consensus studies for best practice. This survey was created to assess the current state of TBI in Canada. Methods: The survey was created with questions focusing on the radiation prescription, delivery technique and resources involved. The survey was circulated electronically to the heads of every clinical medical physics department in Canada. Responses were gathered and collated, and centres that were known to deliver TBI were urged to respond. Results: Responses from 20 centres were received, including 12 from centres that perform TBI. Although a variety of TBI dose prescriptions were reported, 12 Gy in 6 fractions was used in 11 centres while 5 centres use unique prescriptions. For dose rate, a range of 9 to 51 cGy/min was reported. Most centres use an extended SSD technique, with the patient standing or lying down against a wall. The rest use either a “sweeping” technique or a more complicated multi‐field technique. All centres but one indicated that they shield the lungs, and only a minority shield other organs. The survey also showed that considerable resources are used for TBI including extra staffing, extended planning and treatment times and the use of locally developed hardware or software. Conclusions: This survey highlights that both similarities and important discrepancies exist between TBI techniques across the country, and is an opportunity to prompt more collaboration between centres.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".