Evaluating Iodine-125 DNA Damage Benchmarks of Monte Carlo DNA Damage Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of Monte Carlo models have been applied to predict yields of DNA damage based on nanoscale track structure calculations. While often similar on the macroscopic scale, these models frequently employ different assumptions which lead to significant differences in nanoscale dose deposition. However, the impact of these differences on key biological readouts remains unclear. A major challenge in this area is the lack of robust datasets which can be used to benchmark models, due to a lack of resolution at the base pair level required to deeply test nanoscale dose deposition. Studies investigating the distribution of strand breakage in short DNA strands following the decay of incorporated 125I offer one of the few benchmarks for model predictions on this scale. In this work, we have used TOPAS-nBio to evaluate the performance of three Geant4-DNA physics models at predicting the distribution and yield of strand breaks in this irradiation scenario. For each model, energy and OH radical distributions were simulated and used to generate predictions of strand breakage, varying energy thresholds for strand breakage and OH interaction rates to fit to the experimental data. All three models could fit well to the observed data, although the best-fitting strand break energy thresholds ranged from 29.5 to 32.5 eV, significantly higher than previous studies. However, despite well describing the resulting DNA fragment distribution, these fit models differed significantly with other endpoints, such as the total yield of breaks, which varied by 70%. Limitations in the underlying data due to inherent normalisation mean it is not possible to distinguish clearly between the models in terms of total yield. This suggests that, while these physics models can effectively fit some biological data, they may not always generalise in the same way to other endpoints, requiring caution in their extrapolation to new systems and the use of multiple different data sources for robust model benchmarking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".