Cellular Dosimetry of <sup>111</sup>In Using Monte Carlo N-Particle Computer Code: Comparison with Analytic Methods and Correlation with In Vitro Cytotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to compare Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP) self- and cross-doses from (111)In to the nucleus of breast cancer cells with doses calculated by reported analytic methods (Goddu et al. and Farragi et al.). A further objective was to determine whether the MCNP-predicted surviving fraction (SF) of breast cancer cells exposed in vitro to (111)In-labeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid human epidermal growth factor ((111)In-DTPA-hEGF) could accurately predict the experimentally determined values. METHODS: MCNP was used to simulate the transport of electrons emitted by (111)In from the cell surface, cytoplasm, or nucleus. The doses to the nucleus per decay (S values) were calculated for single cells, closely packed monolayer cells, or cell clusters. The cell and nucleus dimensions of 6 breast cancer cell lines were measured, and cell line-specific S values were calculated. RESULTS: For self-doses, MCNP S values of nucleus to nucleus agreed very well with those of Goddu et al. (ratio of S values using analytic methods vs. MCNP = 0.962-0.995) and Faraggi et al. (ratio = 1.011-1.024). MCNP S values of cytoplasm and cell surface to nucleus compared fairly well with the reported values (ratio = 0.662-1.534 for Goddu et al.; 0.944-1.129 for Faraggi et al.). For cross doses, the S values to the nucleus were independent of (111)In subcellular distribution but increased with cluster size. S values for monolayer cells were significantly different from those of single cells and cell clusters. The MCNP-predicted SF for monolayer MDA-MB-468, MDA-MB-231, and MCF-7 cells agreed with the experimental data (relative error of 3.1%, -1.0%, and 1.7%). The single-cell and cell cluster models were less accurate in predicting the SF. For MDA-MB-468 cells, relative error was 8.1% using the single-cell model and -54% to -67% using the cell cluster model. Individual cell-line dimensions had large effects on S values and were needed to estimate doses and SF accurately. CONCLUSION: MCNP simulation compared well with the reported analytic methods in the calculation of subcellular S values for single cells and cell clusters. Application of a monolayer model was most accurate in predicting the SF of breast cancer cells exposed in vitro to (111)In-DTPA-hEGF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".