Sci‐Sat AM (1) General‐01: In vitro measurement of cell kill by IMRT fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of the in vitro measurements of cell kill from IMRT fields compared to acute dose delivery are presented. Survival was assayed for three cell lines: Chinese hamster V79 fibroblasts, human cervical carcinoma SiHa and colon adenocarcinoma WiDr. An actual head and neck seven field IMRT plan produced for Varian iX, 120 Millennium MLC linear accelerator was used. The calculated IMRT dose to the point of irradiation in the acrylic phantom was 2.1Gy, verified by measurements with an IC10 ionization chamber. The dose varied within 2% through dimensions of the specimen. Two scenarios were explored: 1. regular IMRT delivery, irradiation time of approximately 5min, and 2. IMRT delivery which required MLC re‐initialization after three fields were delivered, irradiation time of 10min. For comparison the same dose of 2.1Gy was delivered by parallel‐opposed pair (POP) in 75s. Persistent increase in cell survival following irradiation with IMRT fields was observed for all cell lines. This increase varied from small for V79 cells: 0.833±0.018 (95% confidence limits) from POP compared to 0.860±0.040 for IMRT with MLC re‐initialization, to very pronounced for the radiosensitive SiHa cell line: 0.390±0.046 for POP irradiation compared to 0.591±0.080 from IMRT requiring MLC re‐initialization. For WiDr cell line survival was 0.744±0.038 for POP, and 0.809±0.023 for regular IMRT. We observed a persistent, although not always statistically significant increase in cell survival from IMRT fields. While this study does not account for features present in vivo, it provides useful insight into biological consequences of IMRT as assayed by cell survival.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".