A review of radiation genomics: integrating patient radiation response with genomics for personalised and targeted radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The success of radiation therapy for cancer patients is dependent on the ability to deliver a total tumouricidal radiation dose capable of eradicating all cancer cells within the clinical target volume, however, the radiation dose tolerance of the surrounding healthy tissues becomes the main dose-limiting factor. The normal tissue adverse effects following radiotherapy are common and significantly impact the quality of life of patients. The likelihood of developing these adverse effects following radiotherapy cannot be predicted based only on the radiation treatment parameters. However, there is evidence to suggest that some common genetic variants are associated with radiotherapy response and the risk of developing adverse effects. Radiation genomics is a field that has evolved in recent years investigating the association between patient genomic data and the response to radiation therapy. This field aims to identify genetic markers that are linked to individual radiosensitivity with the potential to predict the risk of developing adverse effects due to radiotherapy using patient genomic information. It also aims to determine the relative radioresponse of patients using their genetic information for the potential prediction of patient radiation treatment response. Methods and materials This paper reports on a review of recent studies in the field of radiation genomics investigating the association between genomic data and patients response to radiation therapy, including the investigation of the role of genetic variants on an individual’s predisposition to enhanced radiotherapy radiosensitivity or radioresponse. Conclusion The potential for early prediction of treatment response and patient outcome is critical in cancer patients to make decisions regarding continuation, escalation, discontinuation, and/or change in treatment options to maximise patient survival while minimising adverse effects and maintaining patients’ quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".