Outcome analysis of visual acuity and side effect after ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy for medium-sized choroidal melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report on treatment outcomes for medium-sized choroidal melanoma treated with Ruthenium-106 (Ru-106) plaque brachytherapy. METHODS: A retrospective case series of 28 patients received Ru-106 brachytherapy treatment for choroidal melanoma. The prescribed tumor dose was 85 Gy to a depth of 5 mm. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 31.2 months. At 12 and 24-month postirradiation, the best corrected visual acuity ≥20/70 (LogMar ≥-0.54) was 53.8% and 64.2%, respectively. Median time to tumor regression was estimated to be 10 months (95% CI = 9-18 months), with 100% of response rate by 32 months. Radiation-induced side effects were limited, and there were no postradiation enucleations. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients maintained good visual acuity, with no enucleations and minimal side effects. In this cohort, the Ru-106 plaque brachytherapy proved to be an efficacious and safe treatment option for patients with medium-sized choroidal melanomas with a maximal tumor height of 5 mm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".