MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896527543 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.001

Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline

2018· article· en· W2896527543 on OpenAlexaff
Scott C. Morgan, Karen E. Hoffman, D.A. Loblaw, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Caroline Delbourgo Patton, Daniel A. Barocas, Søren M. Bentzen, Michael Chang, Jason A. Efstathiou, Patrick Greany, Per H. Halvorsen, Bridget F. Koontz, C.A. Lawton, C.M. Leyrer, Daniel W. Lin, Michael E. Ray, Howard M. Sandler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineProstate cancerRadiation therapyMedical physicsRandomized controlled trialGrading (engineering)Evidence-based medicineTask forceCancerRadiologySurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques.Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207