ArticleMedical physics2025
Equilibrium state dynamics-based modeling of temporal dose delivery dependencies of FLASH skin sparing.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Equilibrium state dynamics-based modeling of temporal dose delivery dependencies of FLASH skin sparing.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFLASH radiotherapy shows promise in sparing normal tissues while maintaining tumor control, with the magnitude of its sparing effect being strongly influenced by the temporal dose delivery (TDD) structure of ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation. Quantitatively describing these dependencies is critical for optimizing UHDR treatments and guiding preclinical and clinical applications. PURPOSE: This study introduces perturbed equilibrium state dynamics (ESD) as a minimal phenomenological framework to describe TDD dependencies of FLASH normal tissue sparing.
methodsESD-based modeling assumes a transient perturbation of a generic equilibrium state during irradiation, modulating the biological system's instantaneous radiosensitivity. Isoeffective dose ratios (FLASH-modifying factors, FMF) were derived from a collection of acute skin toxicity data, consisting of both previously published and newly acquired data, from 721 mice across 60 experimental groups irradiated with pulsed electron beams and scanned proton beams spanning various TDD patterns. Eight ESD model variants were evaluated based on their ability to reproduce experimental FMF values, optimizing their three or four free parameters and assessing goodness-of-fit metrics.
resultsThe best-ranked model based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) used three parameters to reproduce accurately 52 averaged FMF values (mean absolute error: 0.034, mean absolute percentage error: 4.3%). It consistently reproduces experimentally observed features of FLASH sparing in terms of FMF, including an increased sparing with dose followed by saturation at high doses. Two additional model variants received similar support by BIC, while the remaining five variants were less favored.
conclusionsESD-based modeling offers an effective framework to describe TDD dependencies of FLASH murine skin sparing while limiting complexity and number of free parameters to avoid overfitting. Through parameter tuning, the ESD modeling aligns with key experimental data, supporting its potential as a predictive, parsimonious framework for experimental and translational research. By highlighting the potential role of a transient equilibrium perturbation modulating instantaneous radiosensitivity and quantifying respective measures, ESD-based models may also guide the exploration and modeling of underlying mechanisms. While the present application is tissue-specific, the approach is broadly adaptable, with clinical translation requiring refitting and validation in other contexts.
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.