Gold Nanoparticle DNA Damage by Photon Beam in a Magnetic Field: A Monte Carlo Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since the emergence of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy, it is important to investigate the impact of the magnetic field on the dose enhancement in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), when gold nanoparticles are used as radiosensitizers during radiotherapy. Gold nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy is known to enhance the dose deposition in the DNA, resulting in a double-strand break. In this study, the effects of the magnetic field on the dose enhancement factor (DER) for varying gold nanoparticle sizes, photon beam energies and magnetic field strengths and orientations were investigated using Geant4-DNA Monte Carlo simulations. Using a Monte Carlo model including a single gold nanoparticle with a photon beam source and DNA molecule on the left and right, it is demonstrated that as the gold nanoparticle size increased, the DER increased. However, as the photon beam energy decreased, an increase in the DER was detected. When a magnetic field was added to the simulation model, the DER was found to increase by 2.5-5% as different field strengths (0-2 T) and orientations (x-, y- and z-axis) were used for a 100 nm gold nanoparticle using a 50 keV photon beam. The DNA damage reflected by the DER increased slightly with the presence of the magnetic field. However, variations in the magnetic field strength and orientation did not change the DER significantly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".