A Cancer Care Ontario Consensus-Based Organizational Guideline for the Planning and Delivery of Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatment in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proposed recommendations are primarily based on the consensus opinion and in-field experience of the Ontario Health/Cancer Care Ontario stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for Spine Metastasis Guideline Development Group and published literature when available. Primary consideration was given to the perceived benefits for patients and the small likelihood of harm arising from recommendation implementation. Apart from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up strategy, all evidence was considered indirect and was provided by the working group in conjunction with their collective expertise in the field of SBRT. The application of an SBRT program requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of a radiation oncologist, spine surgeon, neuroradiologist, medical physicist, medical dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. In Canada, linear accelerators are the most used treatment delivery units and should follow technology-specific quality assurance procedures. Immobilization technique is location dependant. Treatment planning MRI sequences should be acquired no more than 14 days from the date of treatment. In the case of epidural disease, simulation MRI should be completed no more than 7 days from the date of treatment. After treatment, patients should be followed with routine clinical visits every 3 months for the first year, every 3 to 6 months during years 2 and 3, and every 4 to 6 months thereafter. The recommendations enclosed provide a framework for the minimum requirements for a cancer center in Ontario, Canada to offer SBRT for spine metastases.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".