MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024643878 · doi:10.1667/rr3509.1

Enhanced DNA Damage Induced by Secondary Electron Emission from a Tantalum Surface Exposed to Soft X Rays

2006· article· en· W2024643878 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhongli Cai, Pierre Cloutier, Darel J. Hunting, Léon Sanche

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsTantalumSoft X-raysIrradiationDNARadiochemistryMaterials sciencePhysicsChemistryNuclear physicsOpticsBiologyGeneticsMetallurgyLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both thick and thin films of pGEMR-3Zf- plasmid DNA deposited on a tantalum foil were exposed to soft X rays (effective energy of 14.8 keV) for various times in air under a relative humidity of 45% (Gamma approximately 6, where Gamma is the number of water molecules per nucleotide) and 84% (Gamma approximately 21), respectively. For a thick film, the DNA damage was induced chiefly by X-ray photons. For a thin film of DNA, X-ray-induced secondary electrons emitted from the tantalum result in a substantial increase in DNA damages. Different forms of plasmid DNA were separated and quantified by agarose gel electrophoresis and laser scanning. The exposure curves for the formation of nicked circular (single-strand break, SSB), linear (double-strand break, DSB), and interduplex crosslink forms 1 and 2 were obtained for both thick and thin films of DNA. The secondary electron enhancement factor for SSBs, DSBs and crosslinks of the thin film of DNA were derived to be 3.8 +/- 0.5, 2.9 +/- 0.7 and 7 +/- 3 at Gamma approximately 6 and 6.0 +/- 0.8, 7 +/- 1 and 3.9 +/- 0.9 at Gamma approximately 21, respectively. This study provides a molecular basis for understanding the enhanced biological effects at interfaces during diagnostic X-ray examination and radiotherapy.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207