MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035774436 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab9e55

Low dose lung radiation therapy for pneumonia: an examination of historical dose distributions

2020· review· en· W3035774436 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Kirkby, M. Mackenzie

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumoniaMedicineRadiation doseRadiation therapyLungNuclear medicineRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes the COVID-19 disease currently has healthcare systems around the world dealing with unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. One of the primary concerns associated with this illness is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the pneumonia that accompanies it. Historical literature dating back to the 1940s and earlier contains many reports of successful treatment of pneumonias with ionizing radiation. Although these were not randomized controlled trials, they do suggest a potential avenue for further investigation. Technical details in these reports however were limited. In this work we review the literature and identify details including nominal kilovoltage ranges, filtration, and focus-skin distances (FSDs). Using a freely available and benchmarked code, we generated spectra and used these as sources for Monte Carlo simulations using the EGSnrc software package. The approximate sources were projected through a radiologically anthropomorphic phantom to provide detailed dose distributions within a targeted lung volume (approximate right middle lobe). After accounting for the reported exposure levels, mean lung doses fell in a relatively narrow range: 30-80 cGy. Variation in patient dimensions and other details are expected to result in an uncertainty on the order of ± 20%. This result is consistent with the dose range expected to induce anti-inflammatory effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207