ArticleRadiation research2025
Quantifying Sensitivity of Carbon RBE Models to Reference Parameter Variations.
Article in Radiation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A standardized measurement-based approach to estimate modelled relative biological effectiveness for auditing carbon ion beams.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the Mayo Clinic Florida microdosimetric kinetic model and mMKM for carbon ion treatment planning: A matRad-based analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Models used to calculate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon-ion radiotherapy include the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM), stochastic MKM (SMKM), repair-misrepair-fixation (RMF) model, and local effect model I (LEM). We compared the sensitivities of these models to variations in input biological and reference parameters. We used Monte Carlo simulations of clinically realistic carbon-ion beams incident on a phantom and scored input parameters for RBE models (kinetic energy, microdosimetric spectra, double-strand break yield, and physical dose). We combined data with cell- and model-specific parameters to calculate the linear (α) and quadratic (β) components of the carbon-ion beam, which were used along with the reference α and β values and dose to calculate RBE. Model sensitivity to parameters was quantified by statistically introducing uncertainty into independent parameters and sampling the resultant RBE. To assess histological differences contributing to variations in the RBE, we also used various reference cell lines. We recalculated the RBE using different reported datasets within individual cell lines to compare inter- and intra-cell line variability. The variability introduced by inherent measurement and estimation uncertainty was typically 26% for the microdosimetric models, 25% for the RMF model, and 30% for the LEM at the 1-σ level. The variability across cell lines, which averaged 27% for the microdosimetric models and 2.5% for the RMF model, was similar to the intra-cell line variability in the RBE as calculated with unique datasets for an individual cell line. While the focus is largely on comparing models, the results of this study indicate that the variation in RBE within each model, based solely on reference parameters, is substantial. Our findings indicate that the selection of input parameters is of comparable importance to the choice of cell line and even the RBE model. This study provides insight into model robustness and emphasizes the need for continued computational and in-vitro RBE research.
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.