MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024257569 · doi:10.1118/1.4889440

WE‐E‐BRE‐11: New Method to Simulate DNA Damage Using Ionization Cross‐Sections and a Geometrical Nucleosome Model

2014· article· en· W2024257569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Piotr Pater, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronIonizationMonte Carlo methodDNA damageKinetic energyPhysicsDNAAtomic physicsProbability distributionSecondary electronsChemistryNuclear physicsIonStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To obtain probability distributions of various DNA damage types as a function of the incident electron kinetic energy. Methods: Using Geant4‐DNA electron ionization cross‐sections, we calculated path length distributions for electrons of energies between 10 eV and 1 MeV, defined as the length between two subsequent interactions. These path lengths were then convolved with probability distributions for the creation of same‐strand damage, opposite‐strand damage, clustered damage, isolated damage, and same DNA strand target damage. These probability distributions of DNA damage were obtained by a Monte Carlo routine calculating probabilities of interaction in DNA targets inside a nucleosome geometrical model. Results represent the probability of a secondary electron, initially created inside a DNA strand target, of undergoing its next interaction: (1) in the opposite strand (DSB), (2) in the same strand (SSB+), (3) in either the opposite or same‐strand (clustered), (4) in the same DNA target (multiple‐hit) or (5) more than 10 base pairs away (isolated). Results: Electrons with kinetic energy between 50 and 250 eV have a maximal probability of creating DSB, SSB+, clustered damage and multiple‐hits in the same target The probabilities for these damage patterns have values of 2.5%, 4.3%, 6.7% and 5.4%, respectively. Isolated damage is most probable between 700 eV to 900 eV with a probability of 0.2%. Conclusion: We obtained DNA damage probability distributions as a function of electron incident energy. We showed that electrons with kinetic energies between 50 and 250 eV have the highest probability of producing complex forms of DNA damage (DSB, SSB+). We also showed that a double ionization within the same DNA target is the most frequent outcome occurring 5% of the time. It is expected that electron slowing down spectra can be convolved with our formalism to calculate source specific DNA damage patterns. Research grants from governments of Canada and Quebec. PP acknowledges partial support by the CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Grant number: 432290)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207