Unexpected Seed Migration in Prostate Brachytherapy Implants Coincident with Change in Seed Stranding Product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine if significant seed migration occurred when our institution changed seed products by comparing patterns of seed migration in implants containing different stranding material. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Day 0 and Day 30 CT scans were registered by the contoured prostate center of mass. An implant reconstruction program identified seeds on CT according to the pre-plan, enabling one-to-one correspondence between Day 0 and Day 30 seeds. Significant seed migration was defined by review of seeds that migrated > 2 cm outside the prostate or appearance in unexpected locations. Results: Twenty-five (149, 16.8%) new strands displayed movement > 2 cm between Day 0 and Day 30 compared with just 2/118 (1.7%) of the standard strands. Six out of 26 (23%) patients with new strands displayed significant migration compared with 2/13 (14%) of patients with standard strands. In the six patients with new strands and significant migration, a mean of four strands (17%, range: 2-8 per patient) migrated significantly with 65% due to whole strand migration, 25% due to strand breakage, and 10% strand clumping. In the control group, only two strands (2%) migrated significantly, both due to strand breakage. Despite the greater seed movement with the new strands, Day 0 and Day 30 dosimetry was acceptable. CONCLUSION: In this short report, we identified that a change to a new strand type was associated with unexpected significant seed movement compared to our typical strands. Since seed movement can arise from unexpected causes, it is important to maintain quality assurance practices when a change in technique or infrastructure is instituted.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".