MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604506868 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2017.00059

R-IDEAL: A Framework for Systematic Clinical Evaluation of Technical Innovations in Radiation Oncology

2017· article· en· W2604506868 on OpenAlexaff
Helena M. Verkooijen, Linda G.W. Kerkmeijer, Clifton D. Fuller, Robert Huddart, Corinne Faivre‐Finn, Marcel Verheij, Stella Mook, Arjun Sahgal, Emma Hall, Chris Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineRadiation oncologyRadiation therapyMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pace of innovation in radiation oncology is high and the window of opportunity for evaluation narrow. Financial incentives, industry pressure, and patients' demand for high-tech treatments have led to widespread implementation of innovations before, or even without, robust evidence of improved outcomes has been generated. The standard phase I-IV framework for drug evaluation is not the most efficient and desirable framework for assessment of technological innovations. In order to provide a standard assessment methodology for clinical evaluation of innovations in radiotherapy, we adapted the surgical IDEAL framework to fit the radiation oncology setting. Like surgery, clinical evaluation of innovations in radiation oncology is complicated by continuous technical development, team and operator dependence, and differences in quality control. Contrary to surgery, radiotherapy innovations may be used in various ways, e.g., at different tumor sites and with different aims, such as radiation volume reduction and dose escalation. Also, the effect of radiation treatment can be modeled, allowing better prediction of potential benefits and improved patient selection. Key distinctive features of R-IDEAL include the important role of predicate and modeling studies (Stage 0), randomization at an early stage in the development of the technology, and long-term follow-up for late toxicity. We implemented R-IDEAL for clinical evaluation of a recent innovation in radiation oncology, the MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac). MR-Linac combines a radiotherapy linear accelerator with a 1.5-T MRI, aiming for improved targeting, dose escalation, and margin reduction, and is expected to increase the use of hypofractionation, improve tumor control, leading to higher cure rates and less toxicity. An international consortium, with participants from seven large cancer institutes from Europe and North America, has adopted the R-IDEAL framework to work toward coordinated, evidence-based introduction of the MR-Linac. R-IDEAL holds the promise for timely, evidence-based introduction of radiotherapy innovations with proven superior effectiveness, while preventing unnecessary exposure of patients to potentially harmful interventions.

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)0.440
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.534
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4400.534
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0160.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.425 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations122
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207