The Learning Curve and Inter-Observer Variability in Contouring the Hippocampus under the Hippocampal Sparing Guidelines of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal-sparing brain radiotherapy (HS-BRT) in cancer patients results in preservation of neurocognitive function after brain RT which can contribute to patients' quality of life (QoL). The crucial element in HS-BRT treatment planning is appropriate contouring of the hippocampus. Ten doctors delineated the left and right hippocampus (LH and RH, respectively) on 10 patients' virtual axial images of brain CT fused with T1-enhanced MRI (1 mm) according to the RTOG 0933 atlas recommendations. Variations in the spatial localization of the structure were described in three directions: right-left (X), cranio-caudal (Y), and forward-backward (Z). Discrepancies concerned three-dimensional localization, shape, volume and size of the hippocampus. The largest differences were observed in the first three delineated cases which were characterized by larger hippocampal volumes than the remaining seven cases. The volumes of LH of more than half of hippocampus contours were marginally bigger than those of RH. Most differences in delineation of the hippocampus were observed in the area of the posterior horn of the lateral ventricle. Conversely, a large number of hippocampal contours overlapped near the brainstem and the anterior horn of the lateral ventricle. The most problematic area of hippocampal contouring is the posterior horn of the lateral ventricle. Training in the manual contouring of the hippocampus during HS-BRT treatment planning under the supervision of experienced radiation oncologists is necessary to achieve optimal outcomes. This would result in superior outcomes of HS-BRT treatment and improvement in QoL of patients compared to without HS-BRT procedure. Correct delineation of the hippocampus is problematic. This study demonstrates difficulties in HS-BRT treatment planning and highlights critical points during hippocampus delineation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".