Isobio software: biological dose distributionand biological dose volume histogramfrom physical dose conversion usinglinear-quadratic-linear model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop an in-house software program that is able to calculate and generate the biological dose distribution and biological dose volume histogram by physical dose conversion using the linear-quadratic-linear (LQL) model. Material and methods:The Isobio software was developed using MATLAB version 2014b to calculate and generate the biological dose distribution and biological dose volume histograms.The physical dose from each voxel in treatment planning was extracted through Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research (CERR), and the accuracy was verified by the differentiation between the dose volume histogram from CERR and the treatment planning system.An equivalent dose in 2 Gy fraction (EQD 2 ) was calculated using biological effective dose (BED) based on the LQL model.The software calculation and the manual calculation were compared for EQD 2 verification with pair t-test statistical analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (64-bit).Results: Two and three-dimensional biological dose distribution and biological dose volume histogram were displayed correctly by the Isobio software.Different physical doses were found between CERR and treatment planning system (TPS) in Oncentra, with 3.33% in high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) determined by D 90% , 0.56% in the bladder, 1.74% in the rectum when determined by D 2cc , and less than 1% in Pinnacle.The difference in the EQD 2 between the software calculation and the manual calculation was not significantly different with 0.00% at p-values 0.820, 0.095, and 0.593 for external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and 0.240, 0.320, and 0.849 for brachytherapy (BT) in HR-CTV, bladder, and rectum, respectively. Conclusions:The Isobio software is a feasible tool to generate the biological dose distribution and biological dose volume histogram for treatment plan evaluation in both EBRT and BT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".