RBE-based dose planning, and calculation of TCP and NTCP with gold nanoparticles for intermediate photon energy in pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. This study simulated the potential of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) to improve the effectiveness of radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer cases. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of GNPs on tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) in pancreatic cancer cases undergoing radiation therapy. The work aimed to compare treatment plans generated with a novel 2.5 MV beam using GNPs to conventional 6 MV plans and evaluate the dose-volume histogram (DVH), TCP, and NTCP. Approach. Treatment planning for five pancreatic computed tomography (CT) images was performed using the open-source MATLAB-based treatment planning program matRad. MATLAB codes were developed to calculate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of GNPs and apply the corresponding dose and RBE values to each voxel. TCP and NTCP were calculated based on the applied RBE values. Main results. Adding GNPs to the 2.5 MV treatment plan resulted in a significant increase in TCP, from around 59% to 93.5%, indicating that the inclusion of GNPs improved the effectiveness of the radiation treatment. The range in NTCP without GNPs was relatively larger compared to that with GNPs. Significance. The results indicated that the addition of GNPs to a 2.5 MV plan can increase TCP while maintaining a relatively low NTCP value (<1%). The use of GNPs may also reduce NTCP values by decreasing the dose to normal tissues while maintaining the same prescribed dose to the tumor. Hence, the addition of GNPs can improve the balance between TCP and NTCP.
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 | 0.000 | 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".