Historical view of the effects of radiation on cancer cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Since Röntgen's discovery of X-rays in 1895, advancements in radiobiology have significantly shaped radiotherapy practices. This historical review traces the evolution of radiobiological theories and their impacts on current therapeutic strategies. Materials and Methods: Databases such as PubMed were utilized to trace the evolution of concepts in radiobiology. Results/Discussion: One of the first theories concerning the effect of radiation was Dessauer's target theory, introduced in the 1920s. He found that damage to critical molecular cellular targets leads to cell death. In the early 20th century, Muller contributed to the understanding of DNA structure and radiation-induced mutations, highlighting theories on the impact of radiation on genetic material and cellular damage. In 1972, Kellerer and Rossi introduced the theory of dual radiation action, which explains that ionizing radiation induces sequential damage to DNA, starting with single-strand breaks and progressing to irreparable double-strand breaks. Recent advances have enhanced the understanding of the effects of radiation on the microenvironment and immune responses, thereby improving therapeutic outcomes. The significance of the sigmoid dose-response curve and the initial shoulder effect were recognized early, leading to theoretical models such as the multitarget single-hit, linear-quadratic and repair-misrepair models. The history of fractionation and the 4R/5R principles have informed today's ultrahigh fractionation techniques, including single doses of approximately 20 Gy. Conclusion: Although significant advances have been made toward understanding the effects of radiation on cancerous and healthy tissues, many clinical observations, such as the effects of very high doses or FLASH therapy, remain poorly understood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".