Galvos ir kaklo navikų moduliuoto intensyvumo spindulinio gydymo planų kokybinė analizė
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During external beam radiotherapy of head and neck tumors is impossible to avoid unnecessary exposure for the healthy tissues and critical organs like spinal cord, oesophagus, brain stem and others. Therefore, the main task of radiation therapy is to protect healthy tissues and critical organs without exceeding the tolerance dose level and without reducing the maximum dose to the tumor in case of head and neck cancer and other localizations. In this work, three-dimensional (3D) modulated intensity radiotherapy treatment planning of head and neck tumors was performed. After analysis advantages and disadvantages of 3D Modulated Intensity Radiation Therapy for the head and neck tumors treatment, exposure to the critical organs planned by 3D IMRT methodology was evaluated by comparing irradiation dose values with tolerance dose levels (QUANTEC recommendations and Ontario H&N IMRT protocol), identifying the possible risks of early and late toxicities. Following a qualitative analysis of 3D IMRT plans, it was observed that even the risk of early and late toxicities of critical organs may be reduced, however for some critical organs such as salivary glands or oesophagus it was impossible to avoid exposure, which was higher than the recommended tolerance dose level. Therefore as a result for some patients have been experienced early and late toxicities such as xerostomia, dysphagia and even a decrease up to 25% in salivary gland function. Though early and late radiotherapy toxicities have been observed for the patients, evaluated indices of conformity and homogeneity for the 3D IMRT plans were close to 1, what means sufficient and guaranteed local control of the tumor
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".