Towards Personalized Radiotherapy in Pelvic Cancer: Patient-Related Risk Factors for Late Radiation Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal tissue reactions vary significantly among patients receiving the same radiation treatment regimen, reflecting the multifactorial etiology of late radiation toxicity. Predicting late radiation toxicity is crucial, as it aids in the initial decision-making process regarding the treatment modalities. For patients undergoing radiotherapy, anticipating late toxicity allows for planning adjustments to optimize individualized care. Various dosimetric parameters have been shown to influence the incidence of late toxicity, and the literature available on this topic is extensive. This narrative review examines patient-related determinants of late toxicity following external beam radiotherapy for pelvic tumors, with a focus on prostate and cervical cancer patients. In Part I, we address various methods for quantifying radiation toxicity, providing context for interpreting toxicity data. Part II examines the current insights into the clinical risk factors for late toxicity. While certain factors-such as previous abdominal surgery, smoking behavior, and severe acute toxicity-have consistently been reported, most of the others show inconsistent associations. In Part III, we explore the influence of genetic factors and discuss promising predictive assays. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) likely elevate the risk in specific combinations. Advances in artificial intelligence now allow for the identification of SNP patterns from large datasets, supporting the development of polygenic risk scores. These innovations hold promise for improving personalized treatment strategies and reducing the burden of late toxicity in cancer survivors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".