ESTRO ACROP: Technology for precision small animal radiotherapy research: Optimal use and challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many radiotherapy research centers have recently installed novel research platforms enabling the investigation of the radiation response of tumors and normal tissues in small animal models, possibly in combination with other treatment modalities. Many more research institutes are expected to follow in the coming years. These novel platforms are capable of mimicking human radiotherapy more closely than older technology. To facilitate the optimal use of these novel integrated precision irradiators and various small animal imaging devices, and to maximize the impact of the associated research, the ESTRO committee on coordinating guidelines ACROP (Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice) has commissioned a report to review the state of the art of the technology used in this new field of research, and to issue recommendations. This report discusses the combination of precision irradiation systems, small animal imaging (CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, bioluminescence) systems, image registration, treatment planning, and data processing. It also provides guidelines for reporting on studies.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it