Evaluation of multi-institutional end-to-end testing for post-operative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Post-operative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents a significant challenge as there are many restrictions on beam geometry to avoid metal hardware as it surrounds the target volume. In this study, an international multi-institutional end-to-end test using an in-house spine phantom was developed and executed. The aim was to evaluate the impact of titanium spine hardware on planned and delivered dose for post-operative spine SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five centers performed simulation, planning and irradiation of the spine phantom, with/without titanium metal hardware (MB/B), following our pre-specified protocol. The doses were calculated using the centers' treatment planning system (TPS) and measured with radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters (RPLDs) embedded within each phantom. RESULTS: The dose differences between the RPLD measured and calculated doses in the target region were within ± 5% for both phantoms studied. Differences greater than 5% were observed for the spinal cord and the out-of-the target regions due to steeper dose gradient regions that are created in these plans. Dose measurements within ± 3% were observed between RPLDs that were embedded in MB and B inserts. For the spinal cord and the out-of-target regions surrounded by metal hardware, the dose measured using RPLDs was within 3% different near the titanium screws compared to the dose measured near only the metal rods. CONCLUSION: We have successfully performed the first multi-institutional end-to-end dose analysis using an in-house phantom built specifically for post-operative spine SBRT. The differences observed between the measured and planned doses in the presence of metal hardware were clinically insignificant.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".