Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison in head-and-neck radiotherapy using JO-IMRT and 3D-CRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluations for the Jaws-only Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (JO-IMRT) technique for head and neck jaws-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) and 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). To compare the head-and-neck therapeutic approaches utilizing JO-IMRT and 3D-CRT techniques, different radiation dose indices were calculated, including: conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and radiobiological variables like Niemierko's equivalent uniform dose based tumor control probability (TCP) of planning target volume (PTV), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (OAR) (brainstem, spinal cord, and parotid grand). Materials and methods: Twenty-five nasopharynx patients were studied using the Prowess Panther Treatment Planning System (Prowess Inc). The results were compared with the dose distribution obtained using 3D-CRT. Results: Regarding tumor coverage and CI, JO-IMRT showed better results than 3D-CRT. The average doses received by the PTVs were quite similar: 72.1 ± 0.8 Gy by 3D-CRT and 72.5 ± 0.6 Gy by JO-IMRT plans (p > 0.05). The mean doses received by the parotid gland were 56.7 ± 0.7 Gy by 3D-CRT and 26.8 ± 0.3 Gy by JO-IMRT (p > 0.05). The HI and CI were 0.13 ± 0.01 and 0.14 ± 0.05 and (p > 0.05) by 3D-CRT and 0.83 ± 0.05 and 0.73 ± 0.10 by JO-IMRT (p < 0.05). The average TCP of PTV was 0.82 ± 0.08 by 3D-CRT and 0.92 ± 0.02 by JO-IMRT. Moreover, the NTCP of the parotid glands, brain stem, and spinal cord were lower using the JO-IMRT than 3D-CRT plans. In comparison to the 3D-CRT approach, the JO-IMRT technique was able to boost dose coverage to the PTV, improve the target's CI and HI, and spare the parotid glands. This suggests the power of the JO-IMRT over 3D-CRT in head-and-neck radiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".