Perceptions of Canadian Radiation Oncologists, Medical Physicists, and Radiation Trainees about the Feasibility and Need of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) in Canada: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) is an emerging radiotherapy. There are ongoing efforts to develop a Canadian accelerator-based BNCT center. However, it remains unclear how Canadian radiation oncologists (RO), medical physicists (MP), and their trainees perceive BNCT and its impact on radiation oncology as a discipline. Methods: A survey was created to explore knowledge of BNCT, its clinical role, and support for Canadian research. It was distributed through the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) and Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP). Results: We received 118 valid responses from all 10 provinces, from 70 RO (59.3%) and 48 MP (40.7%), including 9 residents. Most knew of BNCT and its indications (60.2%). Although many were unaware of reasons behind early failures (44.1%), common reasons were lack of clinical trials and inaccessibility of neutron sources (42.4%) and reactor unsuitability (34.7%). Additionally, 90.6% showed definite (66.9%) or possible (23.7%) support for Canadian BNCT research, while 89% indicated definite (56.8%) or possible (32.2%) willingness for BNCT referrals. Conclusions: Most RO and MP supported Canadian BNCT research and would refer patients. However, limited awareness and lack of experiences remain a challenge. Educational sessions are needed to realize this innovative cancer treatment in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".