MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393189229 · doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100769

Developing and validating a simple urethra surrogate model to facilitate dosimetric analysis to predict genitourinary toxicity

2024· article· en· W4393189229 on OpenAlexaff
Ragu Ratnakumaran, Jonathan Mohajer, Samuel J. Withey, Douglas Brand, Ernest Lee, Andrew Loblaw, Shaun Tolan, Nicholas van As, Alison Tree

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Radiation Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDepartment of Health and Social CareCancer Research UKAccurayRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsUrethraNuclear medicineMedicineUrologyGenitourinary systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The urethra is a critical structure in prostate radiotherapy planning; however, it is impossible to visualise on CT. We developed a surrogate urethra model (SUM) for CT-only planning workflow and tested its geometric and dosimetric performance against the MRI-delineated urethra (MDU). Methods The SUM was compared against 34 different MDUs (within the treatment PTV) in patients treated with 36.25 Gy (PTV)/40 Gy (CTV) in 5 fractions as part of the PACE-B trial. To assess the surrogate's geometric performance, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean distance to agreement (MDTA) and the percentage of MDU outside the surrogate (UOS) were calculated. To evaluate the dosimetric performance, a paired t -test was used to calculate the mean of differences between the MDU and SUM for the D99, D98, D50, D2 and D1. The D(n) is the dose (Gy) to n% of the urethra. Results The median results showed low agreement on DSC (0.32; IQR 0.21–0.41), but low distance to agreement, as would be expected for a small structure (HD 8.4 mm (IQR 7.1–10.1 mm)), MDTA 2.4 mm (IQR, 2.2 mm-3.2 mm). The UOS was 30 % (IQR, 18–54 %) indicating nearly a third of the urethra lay outside of the surrogate. However, when comparing urethral dose between the MDU and SUM, the mean of differences for D99, D98 and D95 were 0.12 Gy (p = 0.57), 0.09 Gy (p = 0.61), and 0.11 (p = 0.46), respectively. The mean of differences between the D50, D2 and D1 were 0.08 Gy (p = 0.04), 0.09 Gy (p = 0.02) and 0.1 Gy (p = 0.01), respectively, indicating good dosimetric agreement between MDU and SUMs. Conclusion While there were geometric differences between the SUM and MDU, there was no clinically significant difference between urethral dose-volume parameters. This surrogate model could be validated in a larger cohort and then used to estimate the urethral dose on CT planning scans in those without an MRI planning scan or urinary catheter.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational Radiation OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207