MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413008991 · doi:10.1097/ppo.0000000000000781

Alternative Radiotherapy Delivery Approaches to Modulate Radiation Response

2025· review· en· W4413008991 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cancer Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyImmune systemFlash (photography)Therapeutic windowMedicineCancer researchImmunologyRadiologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatially fractionated (SFRT) and FLASH radiotherapy (RT) are alternative means of dose delivery that are expected to widen the therapeutic window of clinical RT. The biological mechanisms for the observed effects of normal tissue-sparing with maintained tumor control probability are unknown. First, we introduce the preclinical research technologies for SFRT and FLASH-RT with photon beams, which include carbon nanotubes and modifications of standard small animal irradiators. As a novel concept, we highlight the potential importance of line-focussed x-ray tubes. Following that, we review immunological anti-tumor responses observed in various animal models for both alternative irradiation modalities. While there is agreement that SFRT and FLASH modulate the tumor immune microenvironment, at present, it is not clear if the anti-tumor immunity generated is more beneficial than that resulting from conventional RT. Further preclinical research is required to determine which aspects of the SFRT-mediated or FLASH-mediated anti-tumor immune response could be exploited for the eventual benefit of cancer patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it