MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development and validation of contouring guidelines for post-cystectomy adjuvant radiation of bladder cancer.

2016· article· en· W2589250691 on OpenAlexaff
Brian C. Baumann, Walter Bosch, Amit Bahl, Alison Birtle, Rodney H. Breau, Amarnath Challapalli, Albert J. Chang, Ananya Choudhury, Siamak Daneshmand, Adam S. Feldman, Thomas J. Guzzo, Serena Hilman, Ashesh B. Jani, S. Bruce Malkowicz, Viraj A. Master, Anita Mitra, Sima P. Porten, Jason A. Efstathiou, Libni Eapen, John P. Christodouleas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyContouringBladder cancerAdjuvant radiotherapyRadiation therapyClinical trialCancerSurgeryNuclear medicineUrologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

409 Background: Several organizations are developing clinical trials to evaluate adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for bladder cancer patients at elevated risk of locoregional failure (LF). However, the clinical target volumes (CTVs) & organs at risk (OARs) for this treatment have not been defined in detail. Our purpose was to define multi-institutional consensus CTVs & OARs for male & female bladder cancer patients undergoing adjuvant RT in clinical trials. Methods: We convened a multi-disciplinary group of bladder cancer specialists from 9 centers in 3 countries. 5 radiation oncologists (ROs) & 7 urologists participated in the development of the proposed contours. The group proposed initial language for the CTVs & OARs and contoured them on CT scans of a male & female cystectomy patient with input from ≥ 1 urologist at each center. Using the binomial maximum-likelihood estimates method, we generated 95% level initial contours. We evaluated the contours for level of agreement using the Landis & Koch interpretation of the K statistic. Based on the initial contouring, the group updated its descriptions of the CTVs & OARs. To determine if the revised language produced consistent contours, the cystectomy bed (CB) contour was redrawn on the CT sets by an additional 5 ROs. Results: The group proposed that patients at elevated risk for LF with R0 resections should be treated to the pelvic nodes alone (internal/external iliac, distal common iliac & presacral) whereas patients with ≥ R1 resections should be treated to the pelvic nodes & CB. The group proposed the rectum, bowel space, bone marrow & urinary diversion as OARs. The level of agreement for the initial CTVs & OARs from the group varied substantially (Table). Consensus language to describe CTV & OAR structures where the initial contours varied was successfully developed. Contours & feedback from the validation group are being analyzed. Conclusions: Initial descriptions of CTVs & OARs have been successfully developed. External validation & feedback are pending. The results will be applicable to clinical trials of adjuvant RT in bladder cancer. [Table: see text]

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.181
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.181
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→