Sci‐Thur PM – Brachytherapy 02: Positional accuracy in Pd‐103 permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) brachytherapy at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre (TBCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study aims to quantify the positional accuracy of seed delivery in permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) brachytherapy at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre (TBCC). Methods: Treatment planning and post‐implant CT scans for 5 patients were rigidly registered using the MIM Symphony™ software (MIM Software, Cleveland, OH) and used to evaluate differences between planned and implanted seed positions. Total and directional seed displacements were calculated for each patient in a clinically relevant ‘needle coordinate system’, defined relative to the angle of fiducial needle insertion. Results: The overall average total seed displacement was 10±8 mm. Systematic seed displacements were observed in individual patients and the magnitude and direction of these offsets varied among patients. One patient showed a significant directional seed displacement in the shallow‐deep direction compared with the other four patients. With the exception of this one patient outlier, no significant systematic directional displacements in the needle coordinate system were observed for this cohort; the average directional displacements were −1±5 mm, 2±3 mm, and −2±4 mm in the shallow‐deep, up‐down, and right‐left directions respectively. Conclusion: With the exception of one patient outlier, the magnitude of seed displacements were relatively consistent among patients. The results indicate that the shallow‐deep direction possesses the largest uncertainty for the seed delivery method used at the TBCC. The relatively large uncertainty in seed placement in this direction is expected, as this is the direction of needle insertion. Further work will involve evaluating deflections of delivered needle tracks from their planned positions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".