SU‐E‐T‐494: Influence of Proton Track‐Cell Nucleus Incidence Angle On Relative Biological Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explain a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation artifact whereby differences in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in the induction of initial double strand breaks are observed as a function of the proton track incidence angles in a geometric cell nucleus model. Secondly, to offer an alternative isotropic irradiation procedure to mitigate this effect. Methods: MC tracks of 1 MeV protons were generated in an event‐by‐event mode. They were overlaid on a cylindrical model of a cell nucleus containing 6×109 nucleotide base pairs. The tracks incidence angle θ with respect to the cell nucleus's axis was varied in 10 degrees intervals, each time generating one hundred fractions of ∼2 Gy. Strand breaks were scored in the modeled DNA sugar‐phosphate groups and further sub‐classified into single or double strand breaks (ssbs or dsbs). For each angle, an RBE for the induction of initial dsbs with reference to Co‐60 was calculated. Results: Our results show significant angular dependencies of RBE, with maximum values for incidence angles parallel to the nucleus central axis. Further examination shows that the higher cross‐sections for the creation of dsbs is due to the preferential alignment of tracks with geometrical sub‐parts of the cell nucleus model, especially the nucleosomes containing the sugar‐phosphate groups. To alleviate the impact of this simulation artifact, an average RBE was calculated with a procedure based on a weighted sampling of the angular data. Conclusion: This work demonstrates a possible numerical artifact in estimated RBE if the influence of the particle incidence angle is not correctly taken into account. A correction procedure is presented to better conform the simulations to real‐life experimental conditions. We would like to acknowledge support from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec Sante (FRQS), from the CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant (number 432290) of NSERC, support from NSERC under grants RGPIN 397711‐11 and RGPIN‐2014‐06475 and support from the CIHR under grants MOP‐114910, MOP‐136774 and MOP‐102550.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".