MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407598165 · doi:10.1002/acm2.70014

Left hippocampus sparing model for glioblastoma radiotherapy by utilizing knowledge‐based planning and multi‐criteria optimization

2025· article· en· W4407598165 on OpenAlexaff
Shima Yaghoobpour Tari, Amr Heikal, Connie Le, Fan Yang, Deepak Dinakaran, John Amanie, Albert Murtha, Lindsay Rowe, Wilson Roa, Samir Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHippocampusRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyGlioblastomaNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Results of a prospective, randomized controlled trial at our institute demonstrate an association between the dose to the left hippocampus and neurocognitive decline post-radiotherapy for patients with glioblastoma. To minimize the dose to the left hippocampus, a left hippocampus sparing model was created using RapidPlan (RP) and multi-criteria optimization (MCO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 147 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the left and right hippocampus were delineated. Ninety-seven of 147 VMAT plans were used to configure a RP model named HCS1. The remaining 50 VMAT plans were used for the model validation. All 97 plans were replanned with the HCS1 and further optimized using MCO (HCS1+MCO). MCO was used to explore the trade-off between reducing the left hippocampus mean dose and planning objectives for the targets and other organs-at-risk (OAR) for HCS1 plans. These plans were used to create a new model called HCS2. MCO and RP model configuration were done within the Eclipse treatment planning system. RESULTS: The final HCS2 model decreased the mean dose to the left hippocampus by 26% compared to clinically treated plans without reducing target coverage for 50 validation data. The mean dose to the left hippocampus decreased from 32.65 Gy in clinically treated plans, 30.45 Gy in HCS1-generated plans, and 24.04 Gy in HCS2-generated plans. The mean volume receiving 95% of the prescription dose (V95%) of the planning target volume was 99.08% ± 1.39% in clinically treated plans, 99.03% ± 1.37% in HCS1-generated plans, and 98.80% ± 1.48% in HCS2-generated plans. Mean dose to 0.1 cc of the brainstem improved from 45.91 Gy in clinically treated plans to 39.29 Gy in HCS2-generated plans. CONCLUSIONS: The RP model and MCO helps to decrease left hippocampus mean dose while maintaining the target volume coverage and OAR sparing comparable to clinically treated plans for glioblastoma patients.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207