MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monte Carlo simulation on low-energy electrons from gold nanoparticle in radiotherapy

2012· article· en· W2132909512 on OpenAlexafffund
James C. L. Chow, Michael K. K. Leung, Sean Fahey, Devika B. Chithrani, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPhotonElectronLeesSecondary electronsPhysicsRange (aeronautics)Atomic physicsMonte Carlo method for photon transportBeam (structure)IrradiationPhoton energyRadiationCathode rayMaterials scienceNuclear physicsOpticsDynamic Monte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the low-energy electrons (LEEs) produced when a gold nanoparticle (GNP) is irradiated by photon beams. The secondary electrons emitted from a GNP (diameter = 100 nm), interacting with photon beams with energies equal to 35, 73.3 and 600 keV, were simulated using the Geant4 Monte Carlo code. The phase spaces of the secondary electrons were then used to simulate the LEEs in water using the NOREC Monte Carlo code. All secondary electrons emitted by the GNP, and all LEEs produced by each secondary electron were tracked in Monte Carlo simulations. It is found that the energy distributions of the LEEs from the GNP do not vary significantly between different photon beam energies. Moreover, the 660 keV photon beam produced more LEEs travelling to a longer range than photon beams of lower energies (35 and 73.3 keV). This higher energy deposition and longer range LEEs produced by the 660 keV photon beam can enhance the cell kill. Based on our Monte Carlo results, it is concluded that the unexpected close of the radiosensitization enhancement factors of the 35 (1.66) and 660 keV (1.18) photon beams from our previous measurements is because of the cell kill enhancement with the increased LEE yield and range in the 660 keV photon beam.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207