MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414682568 · doi:10.1002/mp.70052

Diffusing alpha‐emitters radiation therapy: In vivo measurements of effective diffusion and clearance rates across multiple tumor types

2025· article· en· W4414682568 on OpenAlexaff
Mirta Dumančić, Guy Heger, Ishai Luz, Maayan Vatarescu, Noam Weizman, Lior Epstein, Tomer Cooks, L. Arazi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusionIn vivoRadiationMargin (machine learning)DosimetryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Diffusing alpha‐emitters radiation therapy (“Alpha‐DaRT”) is a new modality that uses alpha particles to treat solid tumors. Alpha‐DaRT employs interstitial sources loaded with low activities of , designed to release a chain of short‐lived alpha‐emitters, which diffuse over a few millimeters around each source. Alpha‐DaRT dosimetry is described, to first order, by a framework called the “diffusion–leakage” (DL) model. Purpose The aim of this work is to estimate the tumor‐specific parameters of the DL model from in vivo studies on multiple histological cancer types. Methods Autoradiography studies with phosphor imaging were conducted on 113 tumors in mice from 10 cancer cell lines. An observable, referred to as the “effective diffusion length” , was extracted from images of histological slices obtained using phosphor screens. The tumor and Alpha‐DaRT source activities were measured after excision with a gamma counter to estimate the probability of clearance from the tumor by the blood, . Results The measured values of are in the range of 0.2–0.7 mm across different tumor types and sizes. is between 10 and 90% for all measured tumors, and it generally decreases in magnitude and spread for larger tumors. Conclusions The measured values of and and associated dose calculations indicate that hexagonal Alpha‐DaRT source lattices of 4‐mm spacing with ‐scale activities can lead to effective coverage of the tumor volume with therapeutic dose levels, with considerable margin to compensate for local variations in diffusion and leakage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207