MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417498591

Heterogeneity of study endpoints in stereotactic body radiation therapy studies for bone metastases: A systematic review.

2025· article· en· W4417498591 on OpenAlexaff
Shing Fung Lee, Henry C Y Wong, Eva Oldenburger, Srinivas Raman, Gustavo Nader Marta, Adrian Wai Chan, Dirk Rades, Yvette M. van der Linden, Joanne M. van der Velden, Quynh‐Nhu Nguyen, J. Isabelle Choi, Caroline Hircock, Chiara Doccioli, Claudia Cosma, Saverio Caini, Agata Rembielak, Vassilios Vassiliou, Pierluigi Bonomo, Peter A.S. Johnstone, Sara R. Alcorn, Candice Johnstone, Charles B. Simone, Peter Hoskin, Edward Kai‐Hua Chow, Samuel Ryu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyClinical trialEndpoint DeterminationClinical endpointClinical Practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This systematic review evaluated variability in study endpoints among stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) studies for bone metastases. Heterogeneity in endpoint definitions and reporting may hinder cross-study comparability and the establishment of consistent treatment protocols. Methods: A comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials identified prospective studies, including cohort studies, phase I/II trials, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published between 2014-01-01 and 2024-11-12. Studies were eligible if they: (1) included adult patients with bone metastases treated with SBRT, (2) were prospective, and (3) reported pre-defined clinical endpoints. Results: A total of 58 studies were included: eight cohort studies, 37 phase I/II trials, and 13 RCTs. Pain-related endpoints were the most frequently reported primary endpoints, with pain response reported in 28% (16 studies). Other primary endpoints included toxicities (22%, 13 studies), survival metrics (12%, seven studies), and local control (9%, five studies). Secondary endpoints varied, with survival-related endpoints reported in 60% (35 studies) and toxicity in 41% (24 studies). Endpoint selection differed by clinical scenario, reflecting distinct objectives such as symptom relief, local control, and progression-free survival. Variability in definitions for endpoints, particularly pain flare and vertebral compression fracture, along with inconsistent radiological response criteria, was noted. Conclusion: Considerable heterogeneity in endpoint selection, definitions, and measurement tools across SBRT reflects diverse clinical objectives. Consensus-driven standardisation of endpoints, response criteria, and follow-up schedules is essential to enhance comparability, facilitate evidence synthesis, and support integration of SBRT research findings into clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.199
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.199
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207