A simulation study to assess the potential impact of developing normal tissue complication probability models with accumulated dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the potential clinical impact of the differences between planned and accumulated doses on the development and use of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients who were previously treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver cancer and for whom the accumulated dose was computed were assessed retrospectively. The linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction and generalized equivalent uniform dose were calculated for planned and accumulated doses. Stomach and duodenal Lyman-Kutcher-Burman NTCP models (α/β = 2.5; n = .09) were developed on the basis of planned and accumulated generalized equivalent uniform doses and the differences between the models assessed. In addition, the error in determining the probability of toxicity on the basis of the planned dose was evaluated by comparing planned doses in the NTCP model that were created from accumulated doses. RESULTS: The standard, planned-dose NTCP model overestimates toxicity risk for both the duodenal and stomach models at doses that are below approximately 20 Gy (6 fractions) and underestimates toxicity risk for doses above approximately 20 Gy (6 fractions). Building NTCP models with accumulated rather than planned doses changes the predicted risk by up to 16% (mean: 6%; standard deviation: 7%) for duodenal toxicity and 6% (mean: 2%; standard deviation: 2%) for stomach toxicity. For a protocol that plans a 10% iso-toxicity risk to the duodenum, a 15.7 Gy (6 fractions) maximum dose constraint would be necessary when using standard NTCP models on the basis of a planned dose and a 17.6 Gy (6 fractions) maximum dose would be allowed when using NTCP models on the basis of accumulated doses. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that accumulated dose is a more accurate representation of the true delivered dose than the planned dose, this simulation study indicates the need for prospective clinical trials to evaluate the impact of building NTCP models on the basis of accumulated doses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".