MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025921638 · doi:10.1118/1.3456927

Mechanistic formulation of a lineal‐quadratic‐linear (LQL) model: Split‐dose experiments and exponentially decaying sources

2010· article· en· W2025921638 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Guerrero, Marco Carlone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplicative functionExponential growthApplied mathematicsMathematicsExponential functionFraction (chemistry)Quadratic equationFunction (biology)Mathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In recent years, several models were proposed that modify the standard linear-quadratic (LQ) model to make the predicted survival curve linear at high doses. Most of these models are purely phenomenological and can only be applied in the particular case of acute doses per fraction. The authors consider a mechanistic formulation of a linear-quadratic-linear (LQL) model in the case of split-dose experiments and exponentially decaying sources. This model provides a comprehensive description of radiation response for arbitrary dose rate and fractionation with only one additional parameter. METHODS: The authors use a compartmental formulation of the LQL model from the literature. They analytically solve the model's differential equations for the case of a split-dose experiment and for an exponentially decaying source. They compare the solutions of the survival fraction with the standard LQ equations and with the lethal-potentially lethal (LPL) model. RESULTS: In the case of the split-dose experiment, the LQL model predicts a recovery ratio as a function of dose per fraction that deviates from the square law of the standard LQ. The survival fraction as a function of time between fractions follows a similar exponential law as the LQ but adds a multiplicative factor to the LQ parameter beta. The LQL solution for the split-dose experiment is very close to the LPL prediction. For the decaying source, the differences between the LQL and the LQ solutions are negligible when the half-life of the source is much larger than the characteristic repair time, which is the clinically relevant case. CONCLUSIONS: The compartmental formulation of the LQL model can be used for arbitrary dose rates and provides a comprehensive description of dose response. When the survival fraction for acute doses is linear for high dose, a deviation of the square law formula of the recovery ratio for split doses is also predicted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations57
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207