The Relevance of Dosimetry in Animal Models of Cochlear Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare dose measurements of three different irradiation setups for an animal model of unilateral cochlear irradiation using radiochromic films positioned at the cochlear plane. A method of dosimetry is proposed. METHODS: Radiation field simulation was performed to locate the cochlear plane for irradiation experiments using CT scan images. Fifteen film pieces were irradiated at the cochlear plane with 3 different irradiation field sizes. A 12-mm diameter field (n = 5), 5.7 mm diameter field (n = 5), and a 6.5 × 7.2 mm field (n = 5). After obtaining an ideal irradiation field size, 15 film pieces were used to compare dosimetry between tissue substitute materials (PVC n = 5 and PVC + Teflon, 5 each) and real tissue (frozen animal, n = 5). Auditory brainstem responses at 3 frequencies (8, 16, 20, and 25 kHz) were performed on 7 guinea pigs after a cycle of fractionated unilateral irradiation. RESULTS: Dosimetry in real tissue demonstrated an asymmetric dose distribution at the cochlear plane and ultimately a lower dose deposition (30%) when compared with tissue substitute materials. Auditory brainstem responses of ears subjected to radiotherapy demonstrated progressive hearing loss in long-term assessment. CONCLUSION: Asymmetric dose deposition at the cochlear plane highlights the need of comprehensive real tissue dosimetry in animal studies of cochlear irradiation. To avoid misleading discrepancies in dose-deposition between different studies using the same animal model, appropriate planning and confirmatory dosimetry systems are highly desirable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".