Proposed expansion margins for planning organ at risk volume for lenses during radiation therapy of the nasal cavity in dogs and cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation therapy protocols for the feline or canine nasal cavity can damage epithelial cells of the posterior pole of the lens and lead to the development of cataracts. Aims of this retrospective, descriptive study were to calculate movements of the lens during radiation therapy of the nasal cavity in a sample of cats and dogs, and to propose species-specific expansion margins for planning organ at risk volume (PRV) to minimize radiation doses to the lens. All included patients were immobilized with an indexed bite block and positioned in a vacuum positioning cushion for head irradiation. On-board cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging was used for patient alignment. Both ocular lenses were contoured on the therapeutic CBCTs. Coregistration (fusion) between the planning CT and CBCTs was used to measure the movements of the lens. Two measurements were made: the differences between the centroid point of each lens as well as the displacement of the coregistrations. A total of 496 different observations were recorded from 14 cats and 52 dogs. Using the displacement results, we calculated how often the lens would be within the lens-PRV contour. We proposed that an optimal expansion margin from the lens volume of 2 mm in cats and 3 mm in dogs may be necessary in generating PRV expansion for the lens. From our results, we expect the lens would therefore be within these proposed PRV expansions in 92% of the feline measurements and 95% of the canine measurements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".