Equivalence of Pulsed-Dose-Rate to Low-Dose-Rate Irradiation in Tumor and Normal Cell Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether different fractionation schemes could simulate low-dose-rate irradiation, ovarian cells of the carcinoma cell lines A2780s (radiosensitive) and A2780cp (radioresistant) and AG1522 normal human fibroblasts were irradiated in vitro using different fraction sizes and intervals between fractions with an overall average dose rate of 0.53 Gy/h. For the resistant cell line, the three fractionation schemes, 0.53 Gy given every hour, 1.1 Gy every 2 h, and 1.6 Gy every 3 h, were equivalent to low dose rate (0.53 Gy/h). Two larger fraction sizes, 2.1 Gy every 4 h and 3.2 Gy every 6 h, resulted in lower survival than that after low-dose-rate irradiation for the resistant cell line, suggesting incomplete repair of radiation damage due to the larger fraction sizes. The survival for the sensitive cell line was lower at small doses, but then it increased until it was equivalent to that after low-dose-rate irradiation for some fractionation schemes. The sensitive cell line showed equivalence only with the 1.6-Gy fraction every 3 h, although 0.53 Gy every 1 h and 1.1 Gy every 2 h showed equivalence at lower doses. This cell line also showed an adaptive response. The normal cell line showed a sensitization to the pulsed-dose-rate schemes compared to low-dose-rate irradiation. These data indicate that the response to pulsed-dose-rate irradiation is dependent on the cell line and that compared to the response to low-dose-rate irradiation, it shows some equivalence with the resistant carcinoma cell line, an adaptive response with the parental carcinoma cell line, and sensitization with the normal cells. Therefore, further evaluation is required before implementing pulsed-dose-rate irradiation in the clinic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".