MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dose to regions within the prostate during the learning curve phase in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy: Sector analysis of 71 consecutive patients at Princess Margaret Hospital.

2011· article· en· W2560357662 on OpenAlexaff
Elantholi P. Saibishkumar, Douglas Iupati, Jette Borg, Kimberly A. Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstateBrachytherapyProstate brachytherapyNuclear medicineDosimetryUnivariate analysisProstate cancerWilcoxon signed-rank testImplantUrologyRadiation therapySurgeryInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testMultivariate analysisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

91 Background: It is important to evaluate the dose distribution within the prostate in highly conformal and operator dependent treatment like brachytherapy, especially in the learning curve phase when technical skill is evolving. We report detailed dosimetric analysis of prostate sectors in the initial 71 consecutive implants performed by a physician in the first year of practice. Methods: Implants were done based on a pre plan but intra-operative adjustments were made to account for actual seed positions and addition of seeds and the final dose distribution to the prostate was documented as Intra-operative (IO) plan. Post-implant assessment was at 1 month using fused MRI/CT scans. Twelve prostate sectors were generated by division into 4 quadrants (anterior, posterior, laterals) and 3 segments (base, middle and apex). IO and post-implant (PI) V100 and D90 for sectors and whole prostate were recorded. Comparative (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) and association (Spearman's rank correlation) testing was performed for univariate analysis. Optimal dosimetry values for the entire prostate and sectors were defined as D90 >90% and V100 >85%. Results: Seventy implants were optimal (out of 71) with mean prostate PI V100 and D90 of 95.5% and 117.1%. Only 1 sector had suboptimal mean PI V100 and D90 (70.3% and 85.9%), significantly lower than IO (p<0.001), contributing to lower PI V100 for the base (88%) and anterior sectors (86.9%). The mean IO D90 of apical sectors (126%) was lower than base and mid gland (131% and 132% respectively) and lateral sectors was (134%) higher than anterior and posterior sectors (123% and 126%) consistent with a modified peripheral loading approach. D90 decreased from IO to PI plan in anterior (123% vs 106%, p<0.001) and base sectors (132% vs 108%, p<0.001) while increase was noted in apical (126% vs 133%, p<0.001) and posterior sectors (126% vs 131%, p=0.006). Conclusions: Results are encouraging with optimal dosimetry in 11/12 sectors in most patients, and sector analysis provided insight into planning factors and provided useful data for refinement in practice. Further study correlating sector analysis with clinical outcomes is required. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→