MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979978299 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.09.038

Spinal Cord Dose Tolerance to Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

2019· review· en· W2979978299 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Sahgal, Joe H. Chang, Lijun Ma, Lawrence B. Marks, Michael T. Milano, Paul Medin, Andrzej Niemierko, Scott G. Soltys, Wolfgang A. Tomé, C. Shun Wong, Ellen Yorke, Jimm Grimm, Andrew Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cordNuclear medicineRadiosurgeryMyelopathyRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord tolerance data for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were extracted from published reports, reviewed, and modelled. For de novo SBRT delivered in 1 to 5 fractions, the following spinal cord point maximum doses (D max ) are estimated to be associated with a 1% to 5% risk of radiation myelopathy (RM): 12.4 to 14.0 Gy in 1 fraction, 17.0 Gy in 2 fractions, 20.3 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.0 Gy in 4 fractions, and 25.3 Gy in 5 fractions. For reirradiation SBRT delivered in 1 to 5 fractions, reported factors associated with a lower risk of RM include cumulative thecal sac equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions with an alpha/beta of 2 (EQD2 2 ) D max ≤70 Gy; SBRT thecal sac EQD2 2 D max ≤25 Gy, thecal sac SBRT EQD2 2 D max to cumulative EQD2 2 D max ratio ≤0.5, and a minimum time interval to reirradiation of ≥5 months. Larger studies containing complete institutional cohorts with dosimetric data of patients treated with spine SBRT, with and without RM, are required to refine RM risk estimates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations190
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207