MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987780146

Correlation between small-volume spinal cord doses for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

2018· article· en· W2987780146 on OpenAlexaff
Lijun Ma, Lei Wang, Young Lee, Chia‐Lin Tseng, Scott G. Soltys, Steve Braunstein, Arjun Sahgal

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cordMedicineNuclear medicineCordRadiosurgeryCyberknifeRadiation therapyRadiologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Doses to small spinal cord isodose volume (such as those ranging from Dmax 0.0 cc to 0.5 cc) as well as to large volumes (such as those ranging from 0.5 cc to 3.0 cc) are critical parameters to guide safe practice of spine SBRT. We here report a mathematical formula that links the most probable dose volume limits together for common spine SBRT cases.Methods and materials: A dose ripple formula parameterized with equivalent dose radius (EDR) was derived to model spinal cord small-volume doses for a spine SBRT treatment. A cohort of spine SBRT cases (n=68), treated with either a robotic x-band linac or a conventional S-band linac, was selected to verify the model predictions. The mean prescription dose was 22± 4 Gy (range, 12-40 Gy) delivered in 2±1 fractions. The mean and median target volume was 39.4±42.5 cc and 30.3 cc (range, 0.24-264.2 cc), respectively. Direct correlations between the spinal cord Dmax and variable spinal cord doses of increasing isodose volumes (ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc) of different planning organ-at-risk volumes (PRVs) were investigated. The PRV structures for the study included the true cord, thecal sac and the true cord plus variable margins ranging from 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm. RESULTS: > 0.96) for all the studied PRVs were observed when correlating EDRs amongst isodose volumes ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc. In particular, EDR dependence was found to differ significantly for the thecal sac versus the spinal cord with or without 1-3 millimeter margins. With strong EDR correlation, the most probable relationship among the small-volume dose limits was derived for the spinal cord PRVs. CONCLUSION: An analytical formula linked the most probable pin-point/small isodose volume doses with relatively large isodose volume doses of the spinal cord for spine SBRT. As a result, a small number of dose limits such as Dmax or D(0.35cc) are likely sufficient to surrogate the spinal cord dose tolerance for consistent treatment planning optimization and outcome analysis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207