The effect of radiation quality on the risks of second malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Abstract Purpose: Numerous studies have implicated elevated second cancer risks as a result of radiation therapy. Our aim in this paper was to contribute to an understanding of the effects of radiation quality on second cancer risks. In particular, we developed a biologically motivated model to study the effects of linear energy transfer (LET) of charged particles (including protons, alpha particles and heavy ions Carbon and Neon) on the risk of second cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A widely used approach to estimate the risk uses the so-called initiation-inactivation-repopulation model. Based on the available experimental data for the LET dependence of radiobiological parameters and mutation rate, we generalized this formulation to include the effects of radiation quality. We evaluated the secondary cancer risks for protons in the clinical range of LET, i.e., around 4-10 (KeV/μm), which lies in the plateau region of the Bragg peak. RESULTS: For protons, at a fixed radiation dose, we showed that the increase in second cancer risks correlated directly with increasing values of LET to a certain point, and then decreased. Interestingly, we obtained a higher risk for proton LET of 10 KeV/μm compared to the lower LET of 4 KeV/μm in the low dose region. In the case of heavy ions, the risk was higher for Carbon ions than Neon ions (even though they have almost the same LET). We also compared protons and alpha particles with the same LET, and it was interesting to note that the second cancer risks were higher for protons compared to alpha particles in the low-dose region. CONCLUSION: Overall, this study demonstrated the importance of including LET dependence in the estimation of second cancer risk. Our theoretical risk predictions were noticeably high; however, the biological end points should be tested experimentally for multiple treatment fields and to improve theoretical predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".