Tracing the Evolution of Prostate Brachytherapy in the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate brachytherapy (BT) techniques have evolved over the past century. This paper aimed to preserve our collective memory of history and the early development of its technique. We searched articles in PubMed and Google Scholar using keywords referring to authors, dates, and BT technical details, including different radioactive sources and country-specific publications. We reviewed the work published by Holm and Aronowitz. The digital library Internet Archives was used to retrieve original journal articles, science newspaper printings, and government reports, which allowed us to situate the development of BT in its sociopolitical context in Europe and the USA. Our search was conducted in English, French, and German languages. SUMMARY: Early BT methods were developed by European physicians with early access to radium. Technical advancements were made by HH Young, who brought this practice to the USA, where Barringer pioneered the use of radon seeds and low-dose interstitial brachytherapy. While centralized radiotherapy centers, such as Memorial Hospital in New York, emerged for training and research, the high cost of radium and opposing interests made brachytherapy harder to implement in Germany. After World War II, the introduction of man-made radioisotopes allowed experiments with colloidal solutions and new seeds, including I-125. In the 1980s, transrectal ultrasound allowed for more accurate radioactive seed insertion and replaced the transrectal finger guidance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".