MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Big Data in Radiation Oncology

2016· book-chapter· en· W4242038247 on OpenAlexaff
Issam El Naqa

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataRadiation therapyRadiation oncologyMedical physicsData scienceDemographicsConfidentialityData sharingComputer scienceMedicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyAlternative medicinePathologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than half of cancer patients receive ionizing radiation as part of their treatment and it is the main modality at advanced stages of disease. Treatment outcomes in radiotherapy are determined by complex interactions between cancer genetics, treatment regimens, and patient-related variables. A typical radiotherapy treatment scenario can generate a large pool of data, “Big data,” that is comprised of patient demographics, dosimetry, imaging features, and biological markers. Radiotherapy data constitutes a unique interface between physical and biological data interactions. In this chapter, the authors review recent advances and discuss current challenges to interrogate big data in radiotherapy using top-bottom and bottom-top approaches. They describe the specific nature of big data in radiotherapy and discuss issues related to bioinformatics tools for data aggregation, sharing, and confidentiality. The authors also highlight the potential opportunities in this field for big data research from bioinformaticians as well as clinical decision-makers' perspectives.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBig DataSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207