Evaluation of a new predictor of heart and left anterior descending artery dose in patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy to the left breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart-sparing techniques are time and resource intensive, although not all patients require the use of these strategies. This study evaluates the performance of different distance metrics in predicting the need for breath-hold radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Fifty left-sided breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast from a single institution were retrospectively studied. The left breast and organs at risk were contoured in accordance to guidelines and a plan with tangents was obtained using the free-breathing CT in supine position. Heart (mean heart dose (MHD), heart V25 Gy) and left anterior descending artery dosimetry were computed and compared against distance metrics under investigation (Contact Heart, 4th Arch and 5th Arch). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to determine optimal cut-points for distance metrics for dosimetric end points. Receiver operating characteristic curves and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association between distance metrics and dosimetric endpoints. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of dosimetric end points. The mean MHD and heart V25 Gy were 2.3 Gy and 10.4 cm3, respectively. With tangents, constraints for MHD (< 1.7 Gy and V25 Gy < 10 cm3) were unattainable in 80% and 46% of patients, respectively. Optimal RPA thresholds included: Contact Heart (73 mm), 4th Arch (7 mm) and 5th Arch (41 mm). Of these, the 4th Arch had the highest overall accuracy, sensitivity, concordance index and correlation coefficient. All metrics were statistically significant predictors for MHD ≥ 1.7 Gy based on univariable logistic regression. Fifth Arch did not reach significance for heart V25 Gy ≥ 10 cm3. Fourth Arch was the only predictor to remain statistically significant after multivariable analysis. We propose a novel “4th Arch” metric as an accurate and practical tool to determine the need for breath-hold radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy with standard tangents. Further validation in an external cohort is necessary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".