Acute and late adverse effects of breast cancer radiation: Two hypo-fractionation protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivered a lower total dose of radiation in larger dose per-fraction over 3 weeks.Many randomized trials supported the comparable efficacy and toxicities of conventional radiotherapy schedule to differenthypofractionated regimens. Patients and methods: One hundred female patients having breast cancer post-surgery randomized into two arms of acceleratedhypofractionation; 39 Gy/13 fractions (group A) and 42.4 Gy/16 fractions (group B) both regimens given as 5 fractions per week. Results: There was a significant increase of incidence of acute radiation dermatitis in patients receiving 39 Gy. Grade I and IIdermatitis reported in 82% and 46% for 39 Gy group and 42.4 Gy group respectively. In-addition, increased chronic subcutaneousfibrosis among patients with group A (28%) compared with (18%) to group B that was statistical significance. Breast conservativesurgery is the only factor that had significant effect on incidence of acute radiation dermatitis and chronic subcutaneous fibrosis. Conclusion: Thirty-nine Gy in 13 fractions has higher acute dermatitis and chronic subcutaneous fibrosis for patients underwentbreast conservative surgery. We need longer follow up to evaluate the efficacy of both regimens as regard of local control andsurvival.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".