MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309046112 · doi:10.1186/s13014-022-02146-8

Functional brain imaging interventions for radiation therapy planning in patients with glioblastoma: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4309046112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Ryan, Masao Nakayama, Ian Gleeson, Liam Mannion, Moshi Geso, Jennifer A. Kelly, Sweet Ping Ng, Nicholas Hardcastle

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Research UKAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyPsychological interventionMedical physicsNuclear medicineProtocol (science)RadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: This systematic review aims to synthesise the outcomes of different strategies of incorporating functional biological markers in the radiation therapy plans of patients with glioblastoma to support clinicians and further research. METHODS: The systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021221021). A structured search for publications was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study characteristics, intervention methodology and outcomes were extracted using Covidence. Data analysis focused on radiation therapy target volumes, toxicity, dose distributions, recurrence and survival mapped to functional image-guided radiotherapy interventions. RESULTS: There were 5733 citations screened, with 53 citations (n = 32 studies) meeting review criteria. Studies compared standard radiation therapy planning volumes with functional image-derived volumes (n = 20 studies), treated radiation therapy volumes with recurrences (n = 15 studies), the impact on current standard target delineations (n = 9 studies), treated functional volumes and survival (n = 8 studies), functionally guided dose escalation (n = 8 studies), radiomics (n = 4 studies) and optimal organ at risk sparing (n = 3 studies). The approaches to target outlining and dose escalation were heterogeneous. The analysis indicated an improvement in median overall survival of over two months compared with a historical control group. Simultaneous-integrated-boost dose escalation of 72-76 Gy in 30 fractions appeared to have an acceptable toxicity profile when delivered with inverse planning to a volume smaller than 100 cm[Formula: see text]. CONCLUSION: There was significant heterogeneity between the approaches taken by different study groups when implementing functional image-guided radiotherapy. It is recommended that functional imaging data be incorporated into the gross tumour volume with appropriate technology-specific margins used to create the clinical target volume when designing radiation therapy plans for patients with glioblastoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207