Transient hypoxia in water irradiated by swift carbon ions at ultra-high dose rates: implication for FLASH carbon-ion therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large doses of ionizing radiation delivered to tumors at ultra-high dose rates (i.e., in a few milliseconds) paradoxically spare the surrounding healthy tissue while preserving anti-tumor activity (compared with conventional radiotherapy delivered at much lower dose rates). This new modality is known as “FLASH radiotherapy” (FLASH-RT). Although the molecular mechanisms underlying FLASH-RT are not yet fully understood, it has been suggested that radiation delivered at high dose rates spares normal tissue via oxygen depletion followed by subsequent radioresistance of the irradiated tissue. To date, FLASH-RT has been studied using electrons, photons, and protons in various basic biological experiments, pre-clinical studies, and recently in a human patient. However, the efficacy of heavy ions, such as energetic carbon ions, under FLASH-RT conditions remains unclear. Given that living cells and tissues consist mainly of water, we set out to study, from a pure radiation chemistry perspective, the effects of ultra-high dose rates on the transient yields and concentrations of radiolytic species formed in water irradiated by 300-MeV per nucleon carbon ions (LET ∼ 11.6 keV/µm). This mimics irradiation in the “plateau” region of the depth–dose distribution of ions, i.e., in the “normal” tissue region in which the LET is rather low. We used Monte Carlo simulations of multiple, simultaneously interacting radiation tracks together with an “instantaneous pulse” irradiation model. Our calculations show a pronounced oxygen depletion around 0.2 μs, strongly suggesting, as with electrons, photons, and protons, that irradiation with energetic carbon ions at ultra-high dose rates is suitable for FLASH-RT.
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) | 0.000 | 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".