Spine Metastasis Practice Patterns among Korean, Chinese, and Japanese Radiation Oncologists: A Multinational Online Survey Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This online survey of practising radiation oncologists from Korea, China and Japan was conducted to investigate the current practices in radiotherapy (RT) for spine metastasis and to compare these practices across the three countries. The questionnaire included nine general information questions and two clinical scenarios (representing 'typical' and 'good' prognosis spine metastasis), with seven questions for each scenario. An anonymous web-based survey using Google Docs® was undertaken from 2 September 2014 to 9 April 2015. A total of 54 Korean, 107 Chinese and 104 Japanese radiation oncologists participated in the study. The first scenario involved a typical case of spine metastasis (~25% expected 1-year survival rate), and the preferred fractionation scheme was 10 fractions of 3 Gy, though the pattern was slightly different in each country. The second scenario involved a good prognosis case (>50% expected 1-year survival rate), and 10 fractions of 3 Gy was the preferred practice in all three countries (however, use of a larger fraction dose with a smaller fraction number was more common in Korea). A more conformal RT technique was more prominent in China and Korea, especially for patients with a good prognosis. Avoidance of reirradiation was notable in China. In summary, a preference for multiple fractionation in RT for spine metastasis was observed in the majority of Korean, Chinese and Japanese radiation oncologists, although there were slight differences in practice preferences, especially for patients with a favorable prognosis.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it