Optimizing interstitial photodynamic therapy with custom cylindrical diffusers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial photodynamic therapy (iPDT) has shown promise recently as a minimally invasive cancer treatment, partially due to the development of non-toxic photosensitizers in the absence of activation light. However, a major challenge in iPDT is the pre-treatment planning process that specifies the number of diffusers needed, along with their positions and allocated powers, to confine the light distribution to the target volume as much as possible. In this work, a new power allocation algorithm for cylindrical light diffusers including those that can produce customized longitudinal (tailored) emission profiles is introduced. The proposed formulation is convex to guarantee the minimum over-dose possible on the surrounding organs-at-risk. The impact of varying the diffuser lengths and penetration angles on the quality of the plan is evaluated. The results of this study are demonstrated for different photosensitizers activated at different wavelengths and simulated on virtual tumors modeling virtual glioblastoma multiforme cases. Results show that manufacturable cylindrical diffusers with tailored emission profiles can significantly outperform those with conventional flat profiles with an average damage reduction on white matter of 15% to 55% and on gray matter of 23% to 58%.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".