Stochastic frontier analysis as knowledge-based model to improve sparing of organs-at-risk for VMAT-treated prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) is used as a novel knowledge-based technique in order to develop a predictive model of dosimetric features from significant geometric parameters describing a patient morphology. 406 patients treated with VMAT for prostate cancer were analyzed retrospectively. Cases were divided into three prescription-based groups. Seven geometric parameters are extracted to characterize the relationship between the organs-at-risk (bladder and rectum) with the planning volume (PTV). In total, 37 dosimetric parameters are tested for these two OARs. SFA allows the determination of the minimum achievable dose to the OAR based on the geometric parameters. Stochastic frontiers are determined with a maximum likelihood estimation technique. The SFA model was tested using validation cohort (30 patients with prescribed dose between 60 and 70 Gy) where 77% (23 out of 30) of the predicted DVHs present a 5% or less dose deterioration for the bladder and rectum with the planned DVH. SFA can be used in EBRT planning as a predictive model based on anatomical features of previously treated plans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".