Impact of a 1.5 T magnetic field on DNA damage in MRI-guided HDR brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Some studies have suggested that the presence of a static magnetic field (SMF) during irradiation alters biological damage. Since MRI-guided radiotherapy is becoming increasingly common, we constructed a DNA-based detector to assess the effect of a 1.5 T SMF on DNA damage during high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy irradiation. METHODS: Block phantoms containing a small cavity for the placement of plasmid DNA (pBR322) samples were 3-D printed with biocompatible tissue equivalent material. The phantom was CT scanned and an HDR brachytherapy treatment plan was designed to deliver 20 Gy and 30 Gy doses to the DNA samples in the presence and absence of a 1.5 T SMF. Relative yields of single- and double-strand breaks (SSBs and DSBs, respectively) were computed from gel electrophoresis images of the DNA band intensities and averaged over sample sizes ranging from 12 to 30. Radiation dose was also measured in the presence and absence of the 1.5 T SMF using GafChromic™ EBT3 film placed in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes. RESULTS: The average yield of DNA with SSBs and DSBs in the presence and absence of the SMF showed no statistically significant differences (all p ≥ 0.17). Differences in the net optical densities of the EBT3 films for each plane were within experimental uncertainty, suggesting no dose difference in the presence and absence of the SMF. CONCLUSIONS: HDR irradiation in the presence of the 1.5 T SMF did not alter dose deposition to the DNA cavity nor change SSB and DSB DNA damage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".