Standardizing Normal Tissue Contouring for Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning: An ASTRO Consensus Paper
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The comprehensive identification and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are vital to the quality of radiation therapy treatment planning and the safety of treatment delivery. This guidance aims to improve the consistency of ontouring OARs in external beam radiation therapy treatment planning by providing a single standardized resource for information regarding specific OARs to be contoured for each disease site. The guidance is organized in table format as a quality assurance tool for practices and a training resource for residents and other radiation oncology students (see supplementary materials). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Task Force formulated recommendations based on clinical practice and consensus. The draft manuscript was peer reviewed by 16 reviewers, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) legal counsel, and ASTRO's Multidisciplinary Quality Assurance Subcommittee and revised accordingly. The recommendations were posted on the ASTRO website for public comment in June 2018 for a 6-week period. The final document was approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors in August 2018. RESULTS: Standardization improves patient safety, efficiency, and accuracy in radiation oncology treatment. This consensus guidance represents an ASTRO quality initiative to provide recommendations for the standardization of normal tissue contouring that is performed during external beam treatment planning for each anatomic treatment site. Table 1 defines 2 sets of structures for anatomic sites: Those that are recommended in all adult definitive cases and may assist with organ selection for palliative cases, and those that should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific clinical scenario. Table 2 outlines some of the resources available to define the parameters of general OAR tissue delineation. CONCLUSIONS: Using this paper in conjunction with resources that define tissue parameters and published dose constraints will enable practices to develop a consistent approach to normal tissue evaluation and dose documentation.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it