ArticleMedical physics2024
Generalized methods for predicting biological response to mixed radiation types and calculating equieffective doses (EQDX).
Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From survival of irradiated mice to modern molecular insights: a seventy-year journey in radiobiology at the institute of biophysics, Czech academy of sciences.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredicting biological responses to mixed radiation types is of considerable importance when combining radiation therapies that use multiple radiation types and delivery regimens. These may include the use of both low- and high-linear energy transfer (LET) radiations. A number of theoretical models have been developed to address this issue. However, model predictions do not consistently match published experimental data for mixed radiation exposures. Furthermore, the models are often computationally intensive. Accordingly, there is a need for efficient analytical models that can predict responses to mixtures of low- and high-LET radiations. Additionally, a general formalism to calculate equieffective dose (EQDX) for mixed radiations is needed. PURPOSE: To develop a computationally efficient analytical model that can predict responses to complex mixtures of low- and high-LET radiations as a function of either absorbed dose or EQDX.
methodsThe Zaider-Rossi model (ZRM) was modified by replacing the geometric mean of the quadratic coefficients in the interaction term with the arithmetic mean. This modified ZRM model (mZRM) was then further generalized to any number of radiation types and its validity was tested against published experimental observations. Comparisons between the predictions of the ZRM and mZRM, and other models, were made using two and three radiation types. In addition, a generalized formalism for calculating EQDX for mixed radiations was developed within the context of mZRM and validated with published experimental results.
resultsThe predictions of biological responses to mixed-LET radiations calculated with the mZRM are in better agreement with experimental observations than ZRM, especially when high- and low-LET radiations are mixed. In these situations, the ZRM overestimated the surviving fraction. Furthermore, the EQDX calculated with mZRM are in better agreement with experimental observations.
conclusionThe mZRM is a computationally efficient model that can be used to predict biological response to mixed radiations that have low- and high-LET characteristics. Importantly, interaction terms are retained in the calculation of EQDX for mixed radiation exposures within the mZRM framework. The mZRM has application in a wide range of radiation therapies, including radiopharmaceutical therapy.
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.