MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Study of Tumor Perfusion with 11C-Acetate during Radiotherapy Treatment in Head and Neck Cancer

2023· article· en· W4389666452 on OpenAlexaff
M’hamed Bentourkia, C.S. Wang, Éric Lavallée, Mamdouh S. Al-Enezi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyHead and neck cancerMedicineNuclear medicinePerfusionCancerHead and neckStage (stratigraphy)RadiologyInternal medicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiotherapy of head and neck cancer in adult humans is generally conducted with the same protocol in terms of radiation dose and number of treatments. The response to the treatment is known to depend on the individuals, and on the stage of the cancer at the start of the treatment. In the last decade, some authors suggested to estimate the tumor response to the treatment at certain time during the treatment, then to adjust the radiation dosage typically to hypoxic tumors. In the present work, we report the assessment of tumor perfusion with the 11C-Acetate radiotracer before and after 4 weeks of radiotherapy treatment. Four volunteers were recruited and imaged twice with a PET/CT scanner for head and neck cancer in dynamic mode for 30 min. A compartmental model was applied to the tumor time-activity curves (TACs). The tumors were first identified on the initial 11C-Acetate image. The images were decomposed in blood and tissue with the independent component analysis (ICA) technique. Since the tumors have different behavior in each patient, the values are reported individually with the rate constants and the influx rate constant. Also, the images show the shrinkage of the tumor after 4 weeks of treatment. Typically, the rate constants K1, k2 and k3 were found, for a single patient, before treatment: tumor: 0.0350, 0.3241, 0.2289; Ganglion: 0.0494, 0.5955, 0.3830, and at mid-treatment: Tumor: 0.7642, 0.2482, 0.0147; Ganglion: 0.6501, 0.2958, 0.0541. By calculating the influx rate constant Ki=K(1)*k(3)/(k(2)+k(3)), this gave a gain in perfusion of 2.95 and 5.2, respectively for the tumor and the ganglion. In conclusion, the assessment of the perfusion is more adequate to estimate tumor response to treatment, tumor hypoxia and necrosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→