A comparison of the relative biological effectiveness of low energy electronic brachytherapy sources in breast tissue: a Monte Carlo study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic brachytherapy sources use low energy photons to treat the tumor bed during or after breast-conserving surgery. The relative biological effectiveness of two electronic brachytherapy sources was explored to determine if spectral differences due to source design influenced radiation quality and if radiation quality decreased with distance in the breast. The RBE was calculated through the number of DNA double strand breaks (RBEDSB) using the Monte Carlo damage simulator (MCDS) in combination with other Monte Carlo electron/photon spectrum calculations. 50kVp photons from the Intrabeam (Carl Zeiss Surgical) and Axxent (Xoft) through 40-mm spherical applicators were simulated to account for applicator and tissue attenuation in a variety of breast tissue compositions. 40kVp Axxent photons were also simulated. Secondary electrons (known to be responsible for most DNA damage) spectra at different distance were inputted into MCDS to calculate the RBEDSB. All RBEDSB used a cobalt-60 reference. RBEDSB data was combined with corresponding average photon spectrum energy for the Axxent and applied to model-based average photon energy distributions to produce an RBEDSB map of an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) patient. Both Axxent and Intrabeam 50kVp spectra were shown to have a comparable RBEDSB of between 1.4 and 1.6 at all distances in spite of progressive beam hardening. The Axxent 40kVp also demonstrated a similar RBEDSB at distances. Most RBEDSB variability was dependent on the tissue type as was seen in rib (RBEDSB ≈ 1.4), gland (≈1.55), adipose (≈1.59), skin (≈1.52) and lung (≈1.50). RBEDSB variability between both sources was within 2%. A correlation was shown between RBEDSB and average photon energy and used to produce an RBEDSB map of a dose distribution in an APBI patient dataset. Radiation quality is very similar between electronic brachytherapy sources studied. No significant reductions in RBEDSB were observed with increasing distance from the source.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".