MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753507135 · doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2017.08.005

Internet-based computer technology on radiotherapy

2017· review· en· W2753507135 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueReports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetCloud computingProcess (computing)DebuggingQuality assuranceSoftwareSoftware engineeringRadiation therapyEngineering managementWorld Wide WebOperating systemEngineeringMedicineOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent rapid development of Internet-based computer technologies has made possible many novel applications in radiation dose delivery. However, translational speed of applying these new technologies in radiotherapy could hardly catch up due to the complex commissioning process and quality assurance protocol. Implementing novel Internet-based technology in radiotherapy requires corresponding design of algorithm and infrastructure of the application, set up of related clinical policies, purchase and development of software and hardware, computer programming and debugging, and national to international collaboration. Although such implementation processes are time consuming, some recent computer advancements in the radiation dose delivery are still noticeable. In this review, we will present the background and concept of some recent Internet-based computer technologies such as cloud computing, big data processing and machine learning, followed by their potential applications in radiotherapy, such as treatment planning and dose delivery. We will also discuss the current progress of these applications and their impacts on radiotherapy. We will explore and evaluate the expected benefits and challenges in implementation as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.380 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReports of Practical Oncology & RadiotherapySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207