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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
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