MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533679148 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.361

PS1 - 183 Recommendations for the Referral of Patients from Proton Beam Therapy, an Alberta Health Services Report: A Model for Canada?

2016· article· en· W2533679148 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samir Patel, Xanthoula Kostaras, Matthew Parliament, Ivo A. Olivotto, Robert Nordal, Keith Aronyk, Neil A. Hagen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralChordomaProton therapyChondrosarcomaRadiation therapyFamily medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers compelling advantages in physical dose distribution compared to photon therapy. There are increasing numbers of gantry-based proton facilities worldwide but no such facilities exist in Canada. To access PBT, Canadian patients must travel abroad for treatment at high cost. In the face of limited access, this report seeks to provide recommendations for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from PBT and suggests an out-of-country referral process. METHODS: A systematic literature search for studies between January 1990 and May 2014 evaluating clinical outcomes after PBT. A draft report was developed through review of evidence, externally reviewed, and approved by the Alberta Health Services Cancer Care Proton Therapy Guidelines steering committee. RESULTS: Proton therapy is often used to treat tumours close to radiosensitive tissues, and children at risk of developing significant late effects of radiation therapy (RT). Local control rates with PBT appear similar to or, in some cases, higher than photon RT in uncontrolled and retrospective studies. Randomized trials comparing equivalent doses of PBT and photon RT are not available. SUMMARY: Referral for PBT is recommended for patients being treated with curative intent, with an expectation for long-term survival, and who are able and willing to travel abroad to a proton facility. Commonly accepted indications for referral include chordoma and chondrosarcoma, intraocular melanoma, and solid tumours in children and adolescents occurring in patients with greatest risk of long-term sequelae. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend routine referral of patients with most head and neck, breast, lung, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic cancers including prostate cancer. It is recommended that all referrals be considered by a multidisciplinary team to select appropriate cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207