ArticleCancer science2023
Invalidity of, and alternative to, the linear quadratic model as a predictive model for postirradiation cell survival.
Article in Cancer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypofractionated Gamma Knife Icon Radiosurgery for Perioptic Meningiomas: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in a Series of 100 Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Retrospective evaluation of high-dose-rate brachytherapy multicriteria planning using physical dose versus radiobiological criteria for prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Invalidity of, and alternative to, the linear quadratic model as a predictive model for postirradiation cell survival.Cancer science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The linear quadratic (LQ) model has been the dominant tool in preclinical radiobiological modeling of cell survival as a function of dose. However, as a second-order polynomial approximation, it suffers from two well-known pitfalls: nonmonotonic behavior and poor extrapolation. This study examined the raw data of 253 sets of photons and 943 sets of the ion beam from the Particle Irradiation Data Ensemble (PIDE) project to understand how often the LQ model could result in a negative β, which would give unrealistic predictions. Additionally, the predictive performance of the LQ model, the power model, and the linear model's predictive performance was studied using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and twofold cross-validation. It was found that, when fitted to the LQ model, 7.5% of the photon and 29.8% of the ion beam dose-response data would result in negative β, compared to 0.77% and 2.0%, respectively, reported in published works. The LQ model performed poorly in LOOCV compared to the alternative power model, and performed the worst among the three models in twofold cross-validation. The LQ model leads to unrealistic parameters, which are vastly under-reported in published studies, and performs poorly in standard cross-validation tests. Therefore, the LQ model is not a valid predictive dose-response model for cell survival. Alternative models need to be investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.