Impact of the Extremities Positioning on the Set-Up Reproducibility for the Total Marrow Irradiation Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total marrow (lymph node) irradiation (TMI/TMLI) delivery requires more time than standard radiotherapy treatments. The patient’s extremities, through the joints, can experience large movements. The reproducibility of TMI/TMLI patients’ extremities was evaluated to find the best positioning and reduce unwanted movements. Eighty TMI/TMLI patients were selected (2013–2022). During treatment, a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed for each isocenter to reposition the patient. CBCT-CT pairs were evaluated considering: (i) online vector shift (OVS) that matched the two series; (ii) residual vector shift (RVS) to reposition the patient’s extremities; (iii) qualitative agreement (range 1–5). Patients were subdivided into (i) arms either leaning on the frame or above the body; (ii) with or without a personal cushion for foot positioning. The Mann-Whitney test was considered (p < 0.05 significant). Six-hundred-twenty-nine CBCTs were analyzed. The median OVS was 4.0 mm, with only 1.6% of cases ranked < 3, and 24% of RVS > 10 mm. Arms leaning on the frame had significantly smaller RVS than above the body (median: 8.0 mm/6.0 mm, p < 0.05). Using a personal cushion for the feet significantly improved the RVS than without cushions (median: 8.5 mm/1.8 mm, p < 0.01). The role and experience of the radiotherapy team are fundamental to optimizing the TMI/TMLI patient setup.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".