MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092171865 · doi:10.1021/jp206854s

Energy Dependence of Gold Nanoparticle Radiosensitization in Plasmid DNA

2011· article· en· W2092171865 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. McMahon, Wendy B. Hyland, Émilie Brun, Karl T. Butterworth, Jonathan A. Coulter, Thierry Douki, David G. Hirst, Suneil Jain, Anthony Kavanagh, Željka Krpetić, Marcus H. Mendenhall, Mark F. Muir, Kevin M. Prise, H. Requardt, Léon Sanche, Giuseppe Schettino, F. J. Currell, Cécile Sicard‐Roselli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsRadiosensitizerAbsorption (acoustics)Colloidal goldPhoton energyPhotonSynchrotronMaterials scienceMonochromatic colorNanoparticleChemistryNanotechnologyAtomic physicsOpticsPhysicsMedicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) are of considerable interest for use as a radiosensitizer, because of their biocompatibility and their ability to increase dose deposited because of their high mass energy absorption coefficient. Their sensitizing properties have been verified experimentally, but a discrepancy between the experimental results and theoretical predictions suggests that the sensitizing effect does not depend solely on gold’s superior absorption of energetic photons. This work presents the results of three sets of experiments that independently mapped out the energy dependence of the radiosensitizing effects of GNPs on plasmid DNA suspended in water. Incident photon energy was varied from 11.8 to 80 keV through the use of monochromatic synchrotron and broadband X-rays. These results depart significantly from the theoretical predictions in two ways: First, the sensitization is significantly larger than would be predicted; second, it does not vary with energy as would be predicted from energy absorption coefficients. These results clearly demonstrate that the effects of GNP-enhanced therapies cannot be predicted by considering additional dose alone and that a greater understanding of the processes involved is necessary for the development of future therapeutics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations55
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207