ArticleScientific reports2026
Resolving the contradiction between simulation and experimental results of using gold nanoparticles in proton therapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
While gold nanoparticles (GNP)s in proton therapy are widely assumed to exert radio-sensitization via mechanism of secondary electron emission, the discrepancies between simulations and experimental outcomes shows that, in some cases, the secondary electron hypothesis fails to explain the experimental observations particularly distant DNA damage beyond the range of low-energy electrons. These persistent discrepancies show weaknesses of this mechanism, as noted by multiple studies. Resolving the long-standing discrepancy is the main purpose of present research. We predict the survival fractions and sensitization enhancement by Geant4 to bridge the gap between simulation and in-vitro data. Through Geant4 Monte Carlo simulations we demonstrate that proton stopping – not electron emission- by GNPs is the dominant mechanism, driving the GNP enhanced proton therapy via amplification of proton’s linear energy transfer (LET). For the first time, our model successfully reconciles simulation with experimental data by quantifying the key radiobiological parameters: dose enhancement ratio (DER) and sensitization enhancement ratio (SER). These findings redefine GNPs as proton energy modulators rather than electron emitters, resolving the long-standing simulation-experiment discrepancies. However, it is emphasized that, the secondary electron emission from metallic NPs in the range of nano-scale have remarkable impact. Furthermore, we derive a mathematical relationship between DER and cell survival fraction (SF) in the linear-quadratic (LQ) model with predicted survival curves showing strong agreement with in-vitro data.
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.