Is intraoperative real-time dosimetry in prostate seed brachytherapy predictive of biochemical outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze intraoperative (IO) dosimetry using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), performed before and after prostate low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), and compare it to dosimetry performed 30 days following the LDR-BT implant (Day 30). MATERIAL AND METHODS: I that was performed with a three-dimensional TRUS-guided interactive inverse preplanning system (preimplant dosimetry). After the implant procedure, the TRUS was repeated in the operating room, and the dosimetry was recalculated (postimplant dosimetry) and compared to dosimetry on Day 30 computed tomography (CT) scans. Area under curve (AUC) statistics was used for models predictive of dosimetric parameters at Day 30. RESULTS: = 0.038). None of the analyzed values for IO or Day 30 dosimetry showed any predictive value for BR. CONCLUSIONS: Although improving the IO preimplant and postimplant dosimetry improved dosimetry on Day 30, the BR-free rate was not dependent on any dosimetric parameter. Unpredictable factors such as intraprostatic seed migration and IO factors, prevented the accurate prediction of Day 30 dosimetry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".