Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32552223›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation biology2021

Accounting for overdispersion of lethal lesions in the linear quadratic model improves performance at both high and low radiation doses.

Igor Shuryak, Michael N Cornforth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Igor ShuryakCenter for Radiological Research, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michael N CornforthDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

Funding

Sample Engineering CoreU19AI067773 · NIAID · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI FORNACE, ALBERT J · 2005 to 2024
$105.4M
NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI067773
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe linear-quadratic (LQ) model represents a simple and robust approximation for many mechanistically-motivated models of radiation effects. We believe its tendency to overestimate cell killing at high doses derives from the usual assumption that radiogenic lesions are distributed according to Poisson statistics. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn that context, we investigated the effects of overdispersed lesion distributions, such as might occur from considerations of microdosimetric energy deposition patterns, differences in DNA damage complexities and repair pathways, and/or heterogeneity of cell responses to radiation. Such overdispersion has the potential to reduce dose response curvature at high doses, while still retaining LQ dose dependence in terms of the number of

resultsChanging the error distribution, while keeping the LQ dose dependence for the mean, enables the NB LQ model variants to outperform the standard LQ model, often providing better fits to experimental data than alternative models.

conclusionsThe NB error distribution approach maintains the core mechanistic assumptions of the LQ formalism, while providing superior estimates of cell survival following high doses used in radiotherapy. Importantly, it could also be useful in improving the predictions of low dose/dose rate effects that are of major concern to the field of radiation protection.

Indexed as

Poisson DistributionCell SurvivalDose-Response Relationship, RadiationHumansLinear ModelsModels, Statisticalcell survivalchromosomal aberrationslethal lesionsLinear quadratic modelmathematical modelingoverdispersionPoisson distribution

Identifiers

PMID32552223
PMCPMC7775901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.