MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366983582 · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109680

A pulmonary vein atlas for radiotherapy planning

2023· article· en· W4366983582 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gerard Walls, Conor McCann, Peter Ball, Katelyn M. Atkins, Raymond H. Mak, Ahmed Bedair, Jolyne O’Hare, J. McAleese, Claire Harrison, Karen A Tumelty, Cathryn Crockett, Sarah-Louise Black, C. Michael Nelson, John D. O’Connor, Alan R. Hounsell, Conor K. McGarry, Karl T. Butterworth, Aidan Cole, Suneil Jain, Gerard G. Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research BoardHealth Service ExecutiveWellcome TrustCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsMedicineContouringRadiation therapyPulmonary veinAtrial fibrillationRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineRadiologyAtlas (anatomy)Radiological weaponCardiac arrhythmiaCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cardiac arrhythmia is a recognised potential complication of thoracic radiotherapy, but the responsible cardiac substructures for arrhythmogenesis have not been identified. Arrhythmogenic tissue is commonly located in the pulmonary veins (PVs) of cardiology patients with arrhythmia, however these structures are not currently considered organs-at-risk during radiotherapy planning. A standardised approach to their delineation was developed and evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The gross and radiological anatomy relevant to atrial fibrillation was derived from cardiology and radiology literature by a multidisciplinary team. A region of interest and contouring instructions for radiotherapy computed tomography scans were iteratively developed and subsequently evaluated. Radiation oncologists (n = 5) and radiation technologists (n = 2) contoured the PVs on the four-dimensional planning datasets of five patients with locally advanced lung cancer treated with 1.8-2.75 Gy fractions. Contours were compared to reference contours agreed by the researchers using geometric and dosimetric parameters. RESULTS: The mean dose to the PVs was 35% prescription dose. Geometric and dosimetric similarity of the observer contours with reference contours was fair, with an overall mean Dice of 0.80 ± 0.02. The right superior PV (mean DSC 0.83 ± 0.02) had better overlap than the left (mean DSC 0.80 ± 0.03), but the inferior PVs were equivalent (mean DSC of 0.78). The mean difference in mean dose was 0.79 Gy ± 0.71 (1.46% ± 1.25). CONCLUSION: A PV atlas with multidisciplinary approval led to reproducible delineation for radiotherapy planning, supporting the utility of the atlas in future clinical radiotherapy cardiotoxicity research encompassing arrhythmia endpoints.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiotherapy and OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207