Computational Nuclear Oncology Toward Precision Radiopharmaceutical Therapies: Current Tools, Techniques, and Uncharted Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT), with its targeted delivery of cytotoxic ionizing radiation, demonstrates significant potential for treating a wide spectrum of malignancies, with particularly unique benefits for metastatic disease. There is an opportunity to optimize RPTs and enhance the precision of theranostics by moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and using patient-specific image-based dosimetry for personalized treatment planning. Such an approach, however, requires accurate methods and tools for the mathematic modeling and prediction of dose and clinical outcome. To this end, the SNMMI AI-Dosimetry Working Group is promoting the paradigm of computational nuclear oncology: mathematic models and computational tools describing the hierarchy of etiologic mechanisms involved in RPT dose response. This includes radiopharmacokinetics for image-based internal dosimetry and radiobiology for the mapping of dose response to clinical endpoints. The former area originates in pharmacotherapy, whereas the latter originates in radiotherapy. Accordingly, models and methods developed in these predecessor disciplines serve as a foundation on which to develop a repurposed set of tools more appropriate to RPT. Over the long term, this computational nuclear oncology framework also promises to facilitate widespread cross-fertilization of ideas between nuclear medicine and the greater mathematic and computational oncology communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".