MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomolecular Damage Induced by Ionizing Radiation: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Low-Energy Electrons on DNA

2015· review· en· W2106456081 on OpenAlexafffund
Elahe Alizadeh, Thomas M. Orlando, Léon Sanche

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Physical Chemistry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDNA damageIonizing radiationRadiation damageDNAIrradiationBiomoleculeElectronMaterials scienceRadiationNanotechnologyBiophysicsChemistryChemical physicsBiologyPhysicsBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many experimental and theoretical advances have recently allowed the study of direct and indirect effects of low-energy electrons (LEEs) on DNA damage. In an effort to explain how LEEs damage the human genome, researchers have focused efforts on LEE interactions with bacterial plasmids, DNA bases, sugar analogs, phosphate groups, and longer DNA moieties. Here, we summarize the current understanding of the fundamental mechanisms involved in LEE-induced damage of DNA and complex biomolecule films. Results obtained by several laboratories on films prepared and analyzed by different methods and irradiated with different electron-beam current densities and fluencies are presented. Despite varied conditions (e.g., film thicknesses and morphologies, intrinsic water content, substrate interactions, and extrinsic atmospheric compositions), comparisons show a striking resemblance in the types of damage produced and their yield functions. The potential of controlling this damage using molecular and nanoparticle targets with high LEE yields in targeted radiation-based cancer therapies is also discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations484
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Physical ChemistrySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207