Radiation damage, repopulation and cell recovery analysis of<i>in vitro</i>tumour cell megacolony culture data using a non-Poissonian cell repopulation TCP model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of radiation damage, tumour repopulation and cell sublethal damage repair and the possibility of extracting information about the model parameters describing them are investigated in this work. Previously published data on two different cultured cell lines were analysed with the help of a tumour control probability (TCP) model that describes tumour cell dynamics properly. Different versions of a TCP model representing the cases of full or partial cell recovery between fractions of radiation, accompanied by repopulation or no repopulation were used to fit the data and were ranked according to statistical criteria. The data analysis shows the importance of the linear-quadratic mechanism of cell damage for the description of the in vitro cell dynamics. In a previous work where in vivo data were analysed, the employment of the single hit model of cell kill and cell repopulation produced the best fit, while ignoring the quadratic term of cell damage in the current analysis leads to poor fits. It is also concluded that more experiments using different fractionation regimes producing diverse data are needed to help model analysis and better ranking of the models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".