ReviewPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Systematic analysis of biological endpoint variability and implications for quantitative modeling of the FLASH sparing effect.
Review in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. 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.
- Systematic tissue oxygen variation shows the modulation of murine skin radiation toxicity at ultra-high dose rates.Physics in medicine and biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) radiotherapy shows promise in sparing normal tissue while maintaining tumor control. However, heterogeneity across preclinical experiments limits cross-study comparability and the development of predictive models. By employing both qualitative and quantitative analyses, we aim to identify variability in endpoints, clarify inconsistencies, and highlight knowledge gaps critical for future quantitative modeling. Material and methods: We reviewed in-vivo proton and electron FLASH murine experiments (1966-2024) and extracted commonly reported endpoints. A subset of comparable endpoints-crypt cell ratio and survival (abdominal), maximum moist desquamation (skin), and Novel-Object-Recognition tests (brain)-was analyzed using qualitative comparison and logistic regression to assess parameters potentially driving the FLASH effect. Results: Fifty papers were reviewed, revealing substantial differences in endpoint selection, timing, and methodology. Most endpoints were not directly comparable across studies, with only four endpoints amenable to cross-study analysis. Logistic regression was constrained by high collinearity among parameters, reflecting both experimental heterogeneity and limited harmonization. Conclusion: Our review highlights the urgent need for standardization in biological endpoints and methodologies in FLASH research. By quantifying variability in preclinical FLASH data and identifying comparable endpoints, our work provides essential guidance for future modeling efforts, bridging biological evidence and quantitative approaches for treatment planning applications.
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.