On the consistency of Monte Carlo track structure DNA damage simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Monte Carlo track structures (MCTS) simulations have been recognized as useful tools for radiobiological modeling. However, the authors noticed several issues regarding the consistency of reported data. Therefore, in this work, they analyze the impact of various user defined parameters on simulated direct DNA damage yields. In addition, they draw attention to discrepancies in published literature in DNA strand break (SB) yields and selected methodologies. METHODS: The MCTS code Geant4-DNA was used to compare radial dose profiles in a nanometer-scale region of interest (ROI) for photon sources of varying sizes and energies. Then, electron tracks of 0.28 keV-220 keV were superimposed on a geometric DNA model composed of 2.7 × 10(6) nucleosomes, and SBs were simulated according to four definitions based on energy deposits or energy transfers in DNA strand targets compared to a threshold energy ETH. The SB frequencies and complexities in nucleosomes as a function of incident electron energies were obtained. SBs were classified into higher order clusters such as single and double strand breaks (SSBs and DSBs) based on inter-SB distances and on the number of affected strands. RESULTS: Comparisons of different nonuniform dose distributions lacking charged particle equilibrium may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the effect of energy on relative biological effectiveness. The energy transfer-based SB definitions give similar SB yields as the one based on energy deposit when ETH ≈ 10.79 eV, but deviate significantly for higher ETH values. Between 30 and 40 nucleosomes/Gy show at least one SB in the ROI. The number of nucleosomes that present a complex damage pattern of more than 2 SBs and the degree of complexity of the damage in these nucleosomes diminish as the incident electron energy increases. DNA damage classification into SSB and DSB is highly dependent on the definitions of these higher order structures and their implementations. The authors' show that, for the four studied models, different yields are expected by up to 54% for SSBs and by up to 32% for DSBs, as a function of the incident electrons energy and of the models being compared. CONCLUSIONS: MCTS simulations allow to compare direct DNA damage types and complexities induced by ionizing radiation. However, simulation results depend to a large degree on user-defined parameters, definitions, and algorithms such as: DNA model, dose distribution, SB definition, and the DNA damage clustering algorithm. These interdependencies should be well controlled during the simulations and explicitly reported when comparing results to experiments or calculations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".