Osteolytic Bone Metastasis: Different Radiotherapy Fractionation Schedules Compared Clinically and Radiographically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare three commonly used radiotherapy fractionation schedules for bone metastasis in terms of clinical and radiological effectiveness. A total of 93 patients with osteolytic bone metastasis were randomized to receive 8 Gyin a single fraction (group A), 20 Gy in 5 fractions (group B) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions (group C). Changes in bone density were measured using the Relative Electron Density (RED) type corrected by Thomas (pe = HU/1.950 + 1.0), where HU is Hounsfield Units. Pain response was assessed according to the Brief Pain Inventory tool. Quality of life was estimated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the MD Anderson Symptom (MDAS) tools.After RT, RED, together with the parameters of EORTC QLQ-C30, MDAS and SAT, significantly increased in all groups (p < 0.001).Specifically, the increase of RED was higher in group C compared to group Athree months post-RT (p = 0.014). Group C was also superior to group A in terms of QoL and BPI three months post-treatment. Multifractionated radiotherapy for osteolytic bone metastasis is superior to single fraction radiotherapy in terms of improvement in quality of life and bone remineralization three months post-RT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".