Depth Dose Enhancement in Orthovoltage Nanoparticle-Enhanced Radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo Phantom Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was to examine the depth dose enhancement in orthovoltage nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy for skin treatment by investigating the impact of various photon beam energies, nanoparticle materials, and nanoparticle concentrations. METHODS: A water phantom was utilized, and different nanoparticle materials (gold, platinum, iodine, silver, iron oxide) were added to determine the depth doses through Monte Carlo simulation. The clinical 105 kVp and 220 kVp photon beams were used to compute the depth doses of the phantom at different nanoparticle concentrations (ranging from 3 mg/mL to 40 mg/mL). The dose enhancement ratio (DER), which represents the ratio of the dose with nanoparticles to the dose without nanoparticles at the same depth in the phantom, was calculated to determine the dose enhancement. RESULTS: The study found that gold nanoparticles outperformed the other nanoparticle materials, with a maximum DER value of 3.77 at a concentration of 40 mg/mL. Iron oxide nanoparticles exhibited the lowest DER value, equal to 1, when compared to other nanoparticles. Additionally, the DER value increased with higher nanoparticle concentrations and lower photon beam energy. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded in this study that gold nanoparticles are the most effective in enhancing the depth dose in orthovoltage nanoparticle-enhanced skin therapy. Furthermore, the results suggest that increasing nanoparticle concentration and decreasing photon beam energy lead to increased dose enhancement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".