MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300189869 · doi:10.17615/1asx-8367

Radiation Dose–Volume Effects and the Penile Bulb

2020· article· en· W4300189869 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joseph O. Deasy, Mack Roach, Jiho Nam, Giovanna Gagliardi, Issam El Naqa, Lawrence B. Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthVarian Medical SystemsLance Armstrong FoundationPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerArmstrong FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsBulbVolume (thermodynamics)RadiationNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsOpticsBiologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dose, volume, and clinical outcome data for penile bulb are reviewed for patients treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Most, but not all, studies find an association between impotence and dosimetric parameters (e.g., threshold doses) and clinical factors (e.g., age, comorbid diseases). According to the data available, it is prudent to keep the mean dose to 95% of the penile bulb volume to <50 Gy. It may also be prudent to limit the D70 and D90 to 70 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively, but coverage of the planning target volume should not be compromised. It is acknowledged that the penile bulb may not be the critical component of the erectile apparatus, but it seems to be a surrogate for yet to be determined structure(s) critical for erectile function for at least some techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNC LibrariesSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207