Marshalling the Potential of Auger Electron Radiopharmaceutical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auger electron (AE) radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) may have the same therapeutic efficacy as α-particles for oncologic small disease, with lower risks of normal-tissue toxicity. The seeds of using AE emitters for RPT were planted several decades ago. Much knowledge has been gathered about the potency of the biologic effects caused by the intense shower of these low-energy AEs. Given their short range, AEs deposit much of their energy in the immediate vicinity of their site of decay. However, the promise of AE RPT has not yet been realized, with few agents evaluated in clinical trials and none becoming part of routine treatment so far. Instigated by the 2022 "Technical Meeting on Auger Electron Emitters for Radiopharmaceutical Developments" at the International Atomic Energy Agency, this review presents the current status of AE RPT based on the discussions by experts in the field. A scoring system was applied to illustrate hurdles in the development of AE RPT, and we present a selected list of well-studied and emerging AE-emitting radionuclides. Based on the number of AEs and other emissions, physical half-life, radionuclide production, radiochemical approaches, dosimetry, and vector availability, recommendations are put forward to enhance and impact future efforts in AE RPT research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".