MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402910902 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101646

Dosimetric Evaluation of Hippocampus Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Stage T1-T2 and Stage T3-T4 Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

2024· article· en· W4402910902 on OpenAlexaff
Kui Wu, Niharika Prasad, Sanjay Jaiswal, Biao Jiang, Xia Li, Wenzheng Sun, Lingli Mao, Kanghua Huang, Minghan Shi, Li Shen, Qichun Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
FundersMedical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsMedicineNasopharyngeal carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)HippocampusRadiation therapyOncologyNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To compare the hippocampus (HPC) dose reduced by HPC-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans between nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients of stages T1-T2 and T3-T4, and to investigate the correlation between the dose of the HPC and the volume of PTV nx70 (the planning target volume of the primary tumor in the nasopharynx that received 70 Gy). Methods and Materials Fifty-eight NPC patients were retrospectively evaluated. HPC-nonsparing IMRT or sparing IMRT for each patient was designed according to the protocol for NPC. Dose-volume histogram was used to evaluate the IMRT plans for each patient. The difference in values of HPC parameters (eg, D min [NS] – D min [S]) between HPC-sparing and nonsparing plans in the stage T1-T2 group and stage T3-T4 group were compared. The correlations between the dose of the HPC and the volume of PTV nx70 were analyzed. Results There was no significance between HPC-sparing and nonsparing IMRT plans. Compared with the HPC-nonsparing plans, the HPC-sparing plans significantly decreased both dosimetric and volumetric parameters for the HPC ( P < .05), except for D min , D 98%, and V 5 . The medians of D median [NS] – D median [S], D mean [NS] – D mean [S], D 40% [NS] – D 40% [S], V 30 [NS] – V 30 [S], V 40 [NS] – V 40 [S] and V 50 [NS] – V 50 [S] in the T1-T2 group were significantly lower than in the T3-T4 group ( P < .05), respectively. Both dosimetric and volumetric parameters for the HPC were positively correlated with the volume of PTV nx70 in HPC-sparing and HPC-nonsparing plans ( P < .05). The volume of PTV nx70 was positively correlated with D median [NS] – D median [S], D mean [NS] – D mean [S], D 40% [NS] – D 40% [S], V 40 [NS] – V 40 [S] and V 50 [NS] – V 50 [S] ( P < .05). Conclusions HPC-sparing IMRT plans may play a more significant role in decreasing D median , D mean , D 40%, and V 30 -V 50 of HPC in NPC patients with stages T3-T4 than those in stages T1-T2. PTV nx70 volume of NPC patients is positively correlated with all dosimetric and volumetric parameters of HPC and the reduction of specific dosage parameters by HPC-sparing IMRT plans.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207