Pan-Canadian assessment of image guided adaptive radiation therapy and the role of the radiation therapist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is a close-looped process where anatomic changes observed during treatment are identified, leading to plan modification prior to treatment delivery. The aim of this study was to explore the status of ART across Canada and review the impact of adaptive technologies on the roles and responsibilities of Radiation Therapists (RTTs). Materials and Methods: Study information and a link to a 30-question survey was sent via email to the RTT manager of all cancer centres across Canada (n = 48). The survey questions included centre demographics, presence of offline and/or online ART activities as standard of care, corresponding roles and responsibilities of the multidisciplinary team, and training activities. The survey was administered electronically and closed after a 3-week accrual period. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Thirty-two out of 48 centres responded across all ten provinces (67 % response rate). Twenty-five centres (78 %) currently perform ART, all of which practiced offline ART while 5 practiced online ART. Most common responses for lack of ART were 'technical limitations' and 'lack of resources'. RTTs are responsible for 50 % (offline) versus 58 % (online) ART respectively, with the most notable change being the addition of target delineation to their daily practice. Conclusions: The status of ART varies across Canada. Offline ART is commonly practiced, but online ART remains an infrequent process due to technical limitations and lack of resources. As centres move towards implementing online ART, the role of the RTT will need to be redefined with corresponding upskilling to support the emergent treatment paradigm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".