WE‐EF‐BRA‐02: A Monte Carlo Study of Macroscopic and Microscopic Dose Descriptors for Kilovoltage Cellular Dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate how doses to cellular (microscopic) targets depend on cell morphology, and how cellular doses relate to doses to bulk tissues and water for 20 to 370 keV photon sources using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods: Simulation geometries involve cell clusters, single cells, and single nuclear cavities embedded in various healthy and cancerous bulk tissue phantoms. A variety of nucleus and cytoplasm elemental compositions are investigated. Cell and nucleus radii range from 5 to 10 microns and 2 to 9 microns, respectively. Doses to water and bulk tissue cavities are compared to nucleus and cytoplasm doses. Results: Variations in cell dose with simulation geometry are most pronounced for lower energy sources. Nuclear doses are sensitive to the surrounding geometry: the nuclear dose in a multicell model differs from the dose to a cavity of nuclear medium in an otherwise homogeneous bulk tissue phantom by more than 7% at 20 keV. Nuclear doses vary with cell size by up to 20% at 20 keV, with 10% differences persisting up to 90 keV. Bulk tissue and water cavity doses differ from cellular doses by up to 16%. MC results are compared to cavity theory predictions; large and small cavity theories qualitatively predict nuclear doses for energies below and above 50 keV, respectively. Burlin's (1969) intermediate cavity theory best predicts MC results with an average discrepancy of 4%. Conclusion: Cellular doses vary as a function of source energy, subcellular compartment size, elemental composition, and tissue morphology. Neither water nor bulk tissue is an appropriate surrogate for subcellular targets in radiation dosimetry. The influence of microscopic inhomogeneities in the surrounding environment on the nuclear dose and the importance of the nucleus as a target for radiation‐induced cell death emphasizes the potential importance of cellular dosimetry for understanding radiation effects. Funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRC), and the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".