Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Radiation damage to normal mammalian tissue in vivo with laser-driven protons at ultra-high instantaneous dose rate

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In the first controlled in vivo test, laser-driven protons delivered in ultrashort ultra-high-dose-rate bunches reduced acute normal-tissue damage in mouse ears compared with conventional X-rays, with RNA evidence of a dose threshold betwee

desk verdict First in-vivo mammalian LD-proton irradiation, with a serious but narrow dosimetry caveat: the sparing margin against the lower-dose X-ray arm is comparable to the quoted dose calibration uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.20460 v2 pith:74LT5YEP submitted 2026-02-24 physics.med-ph physics.plasm-ph

Lieselotte Obst-Huebl , Jamie L. Inman , Jared De Chant , Kei Nakamura , Sahel Hakimi , Morgan Cole , Hang Chang , Cameron G. R. Geddes
show 7 more authors
Anthony J. Gonsalves Jian-Hua Mao Carl B. Schroeder Blake A. Simmons Jeroen van Tilborg Eric Esarey Antoine M. Snijders
This is my paper
classification physics.med-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords laser-drivenprotonsFLASHeffectultra-highinstantaneousdoseratenormaltissuesparingmouseearmodelinvivoradiobiologyRNAsequencingprotondosimetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This study asks whether laser-driven protons, which arrive in roughly 11-nanosecond bunches at instantaneous dose rates near 10^8 Gy/s, can spare normal tissue the way FLASH radiation is thought to. It reports the first controlled in vivo mammalian test: 8 MeV protons delivered 2 Gy per laser shot to mouse ears, up to about 50 Gy total, produced less acute swelling than conventional 300 kVp X-rays at comparable or RBE-adjusted doses. RNA sequencing at 28 and 84 days showed that moderate doses engage immune and epidermal repair programs that later resolve, while high doses suppress them, suggesting a threshold between healing and broad functional exhaustion. The authors position the work as evidence that laser-driven protons are a viable platform for FLASH radiobiology and as a first hint of relative normal-tissue sparing at ultra-high instantaneous dose rate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing apparatus is the laser-driven proton beamline: target-normal-sheath acceleration from a thin foil, transport through permanent-magnet quadrupoles, and a dipole that removes electrons and X-rays, delivering 8 MeV protons in 11 ns bunches at 2 Gy per shot. An online integrating current transformer, calibrated daily against radiochromic film, gives shot-by-shot dose; tissue dose is reconstructed from film behind the ear using a simulated correction factor f = 1.45 ± 0.1 that accounts for energy loss between ear and film and LET-dependent film sensitivity (η = 0.73 ± 0.01). The mouse ear model provides the acute skin-response readout, and RNA sequencing provides the molecular re

What would settle it

Place a small ionization chamber or alanine dosimeter inside an ear-mimicking phantom in the same beamline and compare the measured tissue dose with the film-derived estimate; if the true dose is more than ~12% lower than reported, the 36 Gy group could drop below the X-ray comparison doses and eliminate the sparing. Alternatively, irradiate mouse ears with 8 MeV protons at conventional dose rate with identical LET and dosimetry: if swelling matches X-rays rather than the laser-driven-proton group, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single 36 Gy fraction of 8 MeV laser-driven protons, delivered at 2 Gy per ~11 ns bunch, reduced mouse-ear swelling compared with conventional X-rays: the 36 Gy proton group showed moderately lower swelling than 35.1 Gy X-rays and significantly lower swelling than 40.8 Gy X-rays, the latter chosen with a conservative proton RBE of 1.1. Fractionating the proton dose over two or four days did not change the response. At 50.6 Gy the protons still produced less swelling than published 60 Gy conventional-proton data, though more than minibeam irradiation. Transcriptomes diverged by dose: 36 Gy showed early cytokine, antigen-presentation, and keratinocyte-differ

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the simulation-based dosimetry chain that converts film dose behind the ear into dose in the ear; if the combined correction factor (f = 1.45 ± 0.1) or the LET film-sensitivity correction (η = 0.73 ± 0.01) is biased beyond the quoted ~12% uncertainty, the laser-driven-proton doses shift by several gray, and the apparent sparing versus X-rays could weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, compact laser-driven proton sources can deliver FLASH-like instantaneous dose rates in uniform large fields, enabling in vivo studies without the rastering or microbeam confounds of conventional FLASH machines.
  • The observed relative sparing of normal skin suggests that ultra-high instantaneous dose rate protons may widen the therapeutic window if tumor control is not compromised.
  • The lack of a fractionation effect implies that bunch-level dose rate, not overall treatment schedule, may be the dominant protective parameter in this regime.
  • The transcriptomic threshold—repair programs at ~36 Gy, broad immune suppression at ~50.6 Gy—offers a molecular marker for normal-tissue tolerance that could guide dose selection in future studies.
  • A direct comparison with conventional-dose-rate protons of the same energy and LET is required to confirm that the sparing comes from dose rate rather than the proton modality itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sparing survives a direct dose-rate-controlled comparison, compact laser-driven proton sources could make FLASH-style radiobiology accessible to laboratories without cyclotron-scale facilities.
  • The combination of ultra-high instantaneous dose rate with a low mean dose rate (~0.1 Gy/s) suggests that the biologically relevant trigger may be the dose delivered within each picosecond-to-nanosecond bunch, not the total irradiation time—a hypothesis the authors' parameter space is uniquely positioned to test.
  • A testable extension would be to implant a tumor in the same mouse ear model and compare tumor growth delay with normal-tissue swelling after LD protons; seeing tumor control preserved while skin heals would directly support the FLASH differential effect.
  • The recovery-versus-suppression transcriptomic threshold could be probed further by sampling intermediate doses between 36 and 50 Gy to locate the transition dose and identify predictive gene sets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports, to the authors' knowledge, the first in vivo study of radiation damage to mammalian normal tissue from laser-driven protons at ultra-high instantaneous dose rate. Mouse ears were irradiated with 8 MeV laser-driven protons at 2 Gy per bunch (1.3×10^8 Gy/s instantaneous dose rate, ~0.1 Gy/s mean dose rate) in single or multiple fractions to total doses of 36.0–50.6 Gy, and ear swelling, erythema, and desquamation were compared with conventional 300 kVp X-ray cohorts receiving 35.1 Gy and 40.8 Gy. The authors report reduced swelling in the 36.0 Gy proton group relative to the X-ray groups, with the comparison to 40.8 Gy highly significant and the comparison to 35.1 Gy borderline significant. RNA sequencing at 28 and 84 days shows dose- and modality-dependent transcriptomic signatures. The discussion explicitly acknowledges that a conventional-dose-rate proton control is needed to isolate a true FLASH effect.

Significance. If the central result is robust, this is an important proof-of-principle: it demonstrates that a compact laser-driven proton source can deliver reproducible, dosimetrically controlled UHIDR irradiations to mammalian tissue in vivo and suggests a possible normal-tissue sparing effect. The paper is strong in its detailed beamline characterization, online dosimetry with ICT and film cross-calibration, and the public availability of data and code. The RNA-seq analyses are carefully done with appropriate multiple-testing corrections. However, the headline claim of 'relative sparing' rests on a dosimetric conversion chain that has not been independently validated, and the statistical evidence for the lower-dose X-ray comparison is fragile. The authors are honest about the missing conventional-proton control, but this limits the strength of the dose-rate attribution. The work is likely to be of high interest to the FLASH and laser-plasma communities, provided the dosimetry and statistics are adequately addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, 'Proton dosimetry' (pp. 6–7 of main text)] The key comparison between group A (36.0 Gy LD protons) and X-ray groups E and F depends on the conversion of film dose to tissue dose via f = D_ear/D_film = 1.45 ± 0.1 and the LET film-sensitivity correction η = 0.73 ± 0.01, both derived from beam-transport simulations and 'fake ear' film comparisons. No independent tissue-equivalent dosimeter (e.g., alanine, ionization chamber, or direct calorimetry) is reported at the sample position. The total dose uncertainty is stated as 12%, or ±4.1 Gy for group A. This is larger than the 0.9 Gy separation between group A and the 35.1 Gy X-ray group, for which the reported p-value is only ~0.05. A systematic overestimate of f by 10% would shift group A to ~32.4 Gy, likely erasing any significant difference from the 35.1 Gy arm. The authors should either provide an independent validation of the conversion chain or explicitly restrict the 'relative
  2. [Results, Fig. 3 and 'Statistical Analysis'] The p-values reported for the swelling comparison are per-time-point Welch's t-tests, uncorrected for multiple comparisons across 18 time points. The comparison between group A and group E is described as p~0.05 on days 18–46, which would not survive a reasonable multiple-comparison correction or a repeated-measures analysis. Because this is the dose-matched comparison underlying the 'relative sparing' claim, the authors should present a time-averaged effect (e.g., area under the curve over the acute response window), a mixed-effects model with time as a repeated factor, or an explicit false-discovery-rate control across time points. The current analysis overstates the strength of the evidence for the 35.1 Gy comparison.
  3. [Discussion (p. 10 of main text)] The authors acknowledge that 'reference measurements using conventional dose-rate protons with comparable LET will be essential' to establish a FLASH effect. This is a crucial limitation. The title and abstract imply that the ultra-high instantaneous dose rate is responsible for the reduced swelling, but the experimental design confounds dose rate with particle species, LET, and beam-delivery geometry. Without a conventional-dose-rate proton arm, the study can only claim an X-ray-to-LD-proton difference under an assumed RBE, not a dose-rate effect. I recommend that the title and abstract be tempered accordingly, or that a conventional-proton control be added if feasible. The current framing overreaches the data.
  4. [Results, 'Dosimetry for mouse ear irradiations', and Discussion (RBE)] The choice of RBE=1.1 for the 40.8 Gy X-ray comparison is presented as conservative, and the authors note that in vitro studies report RBE values of 1.2–1.4. However, RBE in the UHDR regime is not established, and if the true RBE for this endpoint were below 1.1, the 40.8 Gy arm would no longer be an upper-bound X-ray comparison. The conclusion should include a sensitivity analysis showing how the significance of the swelling difference and the reported sparing factor vary over a plausible RBE range (e.g., 1.0–1.4). Without this, the strength of the 'possible relative sparing' claim is not quantified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The phrase 'ultra-high instantaneous dose rate' is accurate for the bunch dose rate, but the mean dose rate is only ~0.1 Gy/s, well below typical FLASH criteria. Consider clarifying this in the title or abstract to avoid confusion, as the authors themselves discuss in the Introduction.
  2. [Results, Fig. 3] The p-value annotations in Fig. 3a indicate significance for the A vs F comparison but not for the A vs E comparison. The text reports p~0.05 for A vs E; please add explicit p-values or confidence intervals for that comparison, and clearly indicate the test used.
  3. [Results, 'Ear thickness, erythema and desquamation score'] The comparison with Dombrowsky et al. (462±46 µm) is informative, but that study used fractionated 220 kVp X-rays (4×10 Gy) and a different irradiation geometry. Please state that this is an informal benchmark and not a controlled comparison.
  4. [Methods, 'Proton dosimetry'] The film calibration curve (Supplementary Figure 8) is established with 320 kV X-rays, but the film is used for protons with an LET-correction applied via simulation. Please clarify whether the quoted η=0.73±0.01 includes any uncertainty in the film energy-response model, and whether the 12% total dose uncertainty fully propagates this.
  5. [General] There are several typographical and formatting issues: 'ulta-high' in the Discussion (p. 10), 'iP256,57' citation formatting on p. 5, and 'exclude d' in the Methods. The 'Teaser' line 'This study defines healthy-tissue responses...' overclaims; 'characterizes' would be more accurate.
  6. [RNA sequencing analysis] The RNA-seq sample size is small (n=4 per group). This is acknowledged in the text, but the LDA plots may overstate separation with such small n; consider presenting a permutation-based statistic or at least noting the limited sample size in the figure caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dosimetry chain and literature RBE enter as fixed calibrations, not as fits to the biological endpoint, and the X-ray arms are independent external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—reduced ear swelling after 36.0 Gy laser-driven protons compared with 35.1 and 40.8 Gy conventional X-rays—rests on a dosimetry chain (film behind the ear converted by f = 1.45 ± 0.1 and η = 0.73 ± 0.01 from beam-transport simulations benchmarked by fake-ear films) and on literature RBE values. This is calibration, not outcome-derived fitting: no parameter of the dose conversion or of the RBE adjustment is tuned to the ear-thickness, erythema, or RNA-seq data. The X-ray cohorts E and F are independent irradiations at conventional dose rate, and the RNA-seq analyses use standard pipelines (edgeR, clusterProfiler) on raw counts. The many self-citations (e.g., refs. 4, 40, 54, 56, 57, 64, 65, 80) support beamline operation, simulation tools, and prior platform descriptions; they do not supply the biological conclusion. The paper itself explicitly states that 'reference measurements using conventional dose-rate protons with comparable LET will be essential' to unambiguously establish FLASH sparing—an acknowledged external-validity limitation, not a circular derivation. A potential systematic bias in the simulated film-to-tissue conversion would be a dosimetric correctness risk, but it is not circularity because the conversion is fixed before and independently of the biological outcomes. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical; the main inputs are calibration factors and biological/measurement assumptions rather than derived constants. No new physical entities are proposed. The RBE factor and film/dose correction factors are the most influential externally set numbers.

free parameters (5)
  • RBE factor for proton vs X-ray dose comparison = 1.1 (literature range 1.2–1.4 considered)
    Used to set the 40.8 Gy X-ray dose as 1.1×36 Gy LD-proton dose (Results, Fig. 3a; Discussion). If true RBE differs, the reported sparing changes.
  • Combined sample-to-film dose correction factor f = 1.45 ± 0.1
    Converts film dose behind ear to dose on sample (Methods: Proton dosimetry). Derived from beamline transport simulations and daily fake-ear films; central to all dose group assignments.
  • Film LET sensitivity correction η = 0.73 ± 0.01
    Corrects EBT3 film response for proton LET versus X-ray calibration (Methods). Affects absolute dose.
  • Average LET in mouse ear = 6.9 ± 2.0 keV/μm
    Estimated from simulated on-sample spectrum; used in RBE interpretation. Not directly measured in tissue.
  • Proton bunch length at sample = 11 ns (72% of bunch)
    Simulation-derived; sets the headline instantaneous dose rate of 1.3×10^8 Gy/s. If actual time structure differs, the dose-rate characterization changes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TNSA proton source and magnetic transport produce the simulated on-sample spectrum (5–9 MeV, peak 8 MeV), benchmarked by RCF stacks and scintillator data.
    Beamline simulation (Methods: Proton transport system and beamline simulations) underpins LET, dose correction, and instantaneous dose rate; if the spectrum is mis-modeled, dosimetry shifts.
  • domain assumption EBT3 film optical-density-to-dose calibration from 320 kVp X-rays, with LET corrections, gives accurate proton dose.
    Methods: Proton dosimetry; central to absolute dose and all group comparisons.
  • domain assumption Literature RBE values (1.1 used; 1.2–1.4 discussed) transfer to this acute mouse-ear UHIDR endpoint.
    Discussion uses RBE to choose the X-ray comparison dose; no RBE is measured in this study.
  • domain assumption Ear thickness measured with a micrometer and erythema/desquamation scores are accepted endpoints for acute radiation skin toxicity.
    Used previously in refs 55 and 67; adopted here for group comparisons.
  • domain assumption RNA-seq differential-expression thresholds (|log2FC|≥0.585, FDR≤0.05) and LDA are appropriate for this dataset.
    Standard thresholds; LDA on selected DEGs can overfit with few samples per group, so it is used as a descriptive tool rather than a formal test.
  • domain assumption The 11 ns proton bunch length and 72% bunch fraction are correctly derived from beam transport simulations.
    Used to compute the 1.3×10^8 Gy/s instantaneous dose rate reported in Table 1 and headline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiation damage to normal mammalian tissue in vivo with laser-driven protons at ultra-high instantaneous dose rate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74LT5YEP

@misc{pith2026260220460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiation damage to normal mammalian tissue in vivo with laser-driven protons at ultra-high instantaneous dose rate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74LT5YEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20460}
}
read the original abstract

The differential sparing of normal tissues relative to tumor control observed at ultra-high dose rates, referred to as the FLASH effect, has recently gained considerable attention. The therapeutic advantages of FLASH radiotherapy are expected to be further amplified through the use of protons and ions, which enable precise dose deposition at tumor depth while minimizing irradiation of healthy tissues proximal and distal to the target. Nevertheless, the mechanism underlying this sparing effect remains poorly understood. Laser-driven proton accelerators are capable of delivering uniquely high instantaneous dose rates in ultrashort bunches. Here, we report the first in vivo investigation of normal tissue response to laser-driven proton irradiation, with controlled exposures to 8 MeV protons, delivering total doses up to 50 Gy at 2 Gy per laser shot. Our findings reveal a reduction in tissue swelling following laser-driven proton treatment compared with X-ray irradiations at conventional dose rates. RNA sequencing identified differential gene expression associated with immune and epidermal programs following laser-driven proton irradiations at two different dose levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20460 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Dosimetry results for laser-driven protons. a Proton dose profile at the sample location. The black dashed circle marks the area selected for dose analysis, in this case resulting in an average dose of 15.6 Gy on the film and a lateral dose variation of 6% (standard deviation) in this case. Sharp edges result from the aperture of the mouse ear clamp, which serves as a collimator. Horizontal and vertical lineouts are… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Mouse ear irradiation assembly. a Design of the assembly with ear clamp, aluminum base and plexiglass top with breathing holes. b Photographs of the mouse holder with anesthetized mouse and clearing for the proton beam path during irradiation campaign at the BELLA PW proton beamline. c Close-up of the proton beam path and mouse ear, showing vascular structure. Proton energy LET Dose per bunch Bunch length Pulse sepa… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Daido, M

    H. Daido, M. Nishiuchi, A. S. Pirozhkov, Review of laser -driven ion sources and their applications. Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 56401 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Macchi, M

    A. Macchi, M. Borghesi, M. Passoni, Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction. Rev Mod Phys 85, 751–793 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Kroll, F

    F. Kroll, F. Brack, C. Bernert, S. Bock, E. Bodenstein, K. Brüchner, T. E. Cowan, L. Gaus, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, M. Krause, E. Lessmann, S. Meister, J. Metzkes-ng, A. Nossula, J. Pawelke, J. Pietzsch, T. Püschel, M. Reimold, M. Rehwald, C. Richter, H. Schlenvoigt, U. Schramm, M. E. P. Umlandt, T. Ziegler, K. Zeil, E. Beyreuther, Tumo...

    2022

  4. [4]

    J. Bin, L. Obst-Huebl, J.-H. Mao, K. Nakamura, L. D. Geulig, H. Chang, Q. Ji, L. He, J. De Chant, Z. Kober, A. J. Gonsalves, S. Bulanov, S. E. Celniker, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, B. A . Simmons, T. Schenkel, E. A. Blakely, S. Steinke, A. M. Advanced Science Page 17 of 32 Snijders, A new platform for ultra-high dose rate radiobiological ...

    2022

  5. [5]

    Sun, Review: Production of nuclear medicine rad ioisotopes with ultra -intense lasers

    Z. Sun, Review: Production of nuclear medicine rad ioisotopes with ultra -intense lasers. AIP Adv. 11, 040701 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Barberio, M

    M. Barberio, M. Scisciò, S. Vallières, F. Cardelli, S. N. Chen, G. Famulari, T. Gangolf, G. Revet, A. Schiavi, M. Senzacqua, P. Antici, Laser-accelerated particle beams for stress testing of materials. Nat. Commun. 9, 372 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Redjem, A

    W. Redjem, A. J. Amsellem, F. I. Allen, G. Benndorf, J. Bin, S. Bulanov, E. Esarey, L. C. Feldman, J. F. Fernandez, J. G. Lopez, L. Geulig, C. R. Geddes, H. Hijazi, Q. Ji, V. Ivanov, B. Kanté, A. Gonsalves, J. Meijer, K. Nakamura, A. Persaud, I. Pong, L. Obst-Huebl, P. A. Seidl, J. Simoni, C. Schroeder, S. Steinke, L. Z. Tan, R. Wunderlich, B. Wynne, T. S...

    2023

  8. [8]

    E. R. Tubman, A. S. Joglekar, A. F. A. Bott, M. Borghesi, B. Coleman, G. Cooper, C. N. Danson, P. Durey, J. M. Foster, P. Graham, G. Gregori, E. T. Gumbrell, M. P. Hill, T. Hodge, S. Kar, R. J. Kingham, M. Read, C. P. Ridgers, J. Skidmore, C. Spindloe , A. G. R. Thomas, P. Treadwell, S. Wilson, L. Willingale, N. C. Woolsey, Observations of pressure anisot...

    2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    M. Roth, T. E. Cowan, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, C. B rown, W. Fountain, J. Johnson, D. M. Pennington, R. A. Snavely, S. C. Wilks, K. Yasuike, H. Ruhl, F. Pegoraro, S. V. Bulanov, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, H. Powell, Fast Ignition by Intense Laser - Accelerated Proton Beams...

    2001

  2. [10]

    Steinke, J

    S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, J. Park, Q. Ji, K. Nakamura, A. J. Gonsalves, S. S. Bulanov, M. Thévenet, C. Toth, J.-L. Vay, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, T. Schenkel, W. P. Leemans, Acceleration of high charge ion beams with achromatic diver gence by petawatt laser pul...

    2020

  3. [11]

    T. E. Cowan, J. Fuchs, H. Ruhl, A. Kemp, P. Audebert, M. Roth, R. Stephens, I. Barton, A. Blazevic, J. Gauthier, M. Geissel, M. Hegelich, J. Kaae, S. Karsch, E. Brambrink, J. Cobble, J. Ferna, Ultralow Emittance , Multi -MeV Proton Beams from a Laser Virtual - Cathode Plasma A...

    2004

  4. [12]

    Chaudhary, G

    P. Chaudhary, G. Milluzzo, H. Ahmed, B. Odlozilik, A. McMurray, K. M. Prise, M. Borghesi, Radiobiology Experiments With Ultra -high Dose Rate Laser -Driven Protons: Methodology and State-of-the-Art. Front. Phys. 9, 75 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    A. A. Friedl, K. M. Prise, K. T. Butterworth, P. Montay -Gruel, V. Favaudon, Radiobiology of the FLASH effect. Med. Phys. 49, 1993–2013 (2022)

    1993

  6. [14]

    R. J. Berry, E. J. Hall, D. W. Forster, T. H. Storr, M. J. Goodman, Survival of mammalian cells exposed to x rays at ultra-high dose-rates. Br. J. Radiol. 42, 102–107 (1969). Advanced Science Page 18 of 32

    1969

  7. [15]

    Favaudon, L

    V. Favaudon, L. Caplier, V. Monceau, F. Pouzoulet, M. Sayarath, C. Fouillade, M. F. Poupon, I. Brito, P. Hupé, J. Bourhis, J. Hall, J. J. Fontaine, M. C. Vozenin, Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice....

    2014

  8. [16]

    M. C. Vozenin, J. H. Hendry, C. L. Limoli, Biological Benefits of Ultra-high Dose Rate FLASH Radiotherapy: Sleeping Beauty Awoken. Clin. Oncol. 31, 407–415 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    E. J. Hall, Intensity -modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 65, 1–7 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Esplen, M

    N. Esplen, M. S. Mendonca, M. Bazalova-Carter, Physics and biology of ultrahigh dose-rate (FLASH) radiotherapy: a topical review. Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 23TR03 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    C. L. Limoli, M. -C. Vozenin, Reinve nting Radiobiology in the Light of FLASH Radiotherapy. Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 7, 1–21 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    E. C. Daugherty, A. E. Mascia, M. G. B. Sertorio, Y. Zhang, E. Lee, Z. Xiao, J. Speth, J. Woo, C. McCann, K. Russell, L. Levine, R. Sharma, D. Khuntia, J. P. Perentesis, J. C. Breneman, FAST -01: Results of the First -in-Human Study of Proton FLASH Radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Vozenin, P

    M.-C. Vozenin, P. Montay -Gruel, C. Limoli, J. -F. Germond, All Irradiations that are Ultra-High Dose Rate may not be FLASH: The Critical Importance of Beam Parameter Characterization and In Vivo Validation of the FLASH Effect. Radiat. Res. 194, 571–572 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    S. V. Bulanov, H. Daido, T. Zh. Esirkepov, V. S. Khoroshkov, J. Koga, K. Nishihara, F. Pegoraro, T. Tajima, M. Yamagiwa, Feasibility of Using Laser Ion Accelerators in Proton Therapy. AIP Conf. Proc. 740, 414–429 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Ledingham, P

    K. Ledingham, P. Bolton, N. Shikazono, C.-M. Ma, Towards Laser Driven Hadron Cancer Radiotherapy: A Review of Progress. Appl. Sci. 4, 402–443 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Malka, S

    V. Malka, S. Fritzler, E. Lefebvre, E. D’Humières, R. Ferrand, G. Grillon, C. Albaret, S. Meyroneinc, J. -P. Chambaret, A. Antonetti, D. Hulin, Practicability of protontherapy using compact laser systems. Med. Phys. 31, 1587–1592 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Wagner, O

    F. Wagner, O. Deppert, C. Brabetz, P. Fiala, A. Kleinschmidt, P. Poth, V. A. Schanz, A. Tebartz, B. Zielbauer, M. Roth, T. Stöhlker, V. Bagnoud, Maximum Proton Energy above 85 MeV from the Relativistic Interaction of Laser Pu lses with Micrometer Thick CH2 Targets. Phys. Rev. ...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Higginson, R

    A. Higginson, R. J. Gray, M. King, R. J. Dance, S. D. R. Williamson, N. M. H. Butler, R. Wilson, R. Capdessus, C. Armstrong, J. S. Green, S. J. Hawkes, P. Martin, W. Q. Wei, S. R. Mirfayzi, X. H. Yuan, S. Kar, M. Borghesi, R. J. Clarke, D. Neely, P. McKenna, Near-100 MeV proto...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Ziegler, I

    T. Ziegler, I. Göthel, S. Assenbaum, C. Berner t, F.-E. Brack, T. E. Cowan, N. P. Dover, L. Gaus, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, F. Kroll, J. Metzkes -Ng, M. Nishiuchi, I. Prencipe, T. Püschel, M. Rehwald, M. Reimold, H. -P. Schlenvoigt, M. E. P. Umlandt, M. Vescovi, U. Schramm, K. Zeil,...

    2024

  20. [28]

    U. Linz, J. Alonso, Laser-driven ion accelerators for tumor therapy revisited. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 19, 124802 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    A. Yogo, K. Sato, M. Nishikino, M. Mori, T. Teshima, H. Numasaki, M. Murakami, Y. Demizu, S. Akagi, S. Nagayama, K. Ogura, A. Sagisaka, S. Orimo, M. Nishiuchi, A. S. Pirozhkov, M. Ikegami, M. Tampo, H. Sakaki, M. Suzuki, I. Daito, Y. Oishi, H. Sugiyama, H. Kiriyama, H. Okada, ...

    2009

  22. [30]

    A. Yogo, T. Maeda, T. Hori, H. Sakaki, K. Ogura, M. Nishiuchi, A. Sagisaka, H. Kiriyama, H. Okada, S. Kanazawa, T. Shimomura, Y. Nakai, M. Tanoue, F. Sasao, P. R. Bolton, M. Murakami, T. Nomura, S. Kawanishi, K. Kondo, Measurement of relative biological effectiveness of proton...

    2009

  23. [31]

    S. D. Kraft, C. Richter, K. Zeil, M. Baumann, E. Beyreuther, S. Bock, M. Bussmann, T. E. Cowan, Y. Dammene, W. Enghardt, U. Heibig, L. K arsch, T. Kluge, L. Laschinsky, E. Lessmann, J. Metzkes, D. Naumburger, R. Sauerbrey, M. Schürer, M. Sobiella, J. Woithe, U. Schramm, J. Paw...

    2010

  24. [32]

    K. Zeil, M. Baumann, E. Beyreuther, T. Burris -Mog, T. E. Cowan, W. Enghardt, L. Karsch, S. D. Kraft, L. Laschinsky, J. Metzkes, D. Naumburger, M. Oppelt, C. Richter, R. Sauerbrey, M. Schürer, U. Schramm, J. Pawelke, Dose-controlled irradiation of cancer cells with laser-accel...

    2013

  25. [33]

    Doria, K

    D. Doria, K. F. Kakolee, S. Kar, S. K. Litt, F. Fiorini, H. Ahmed, S. Green, J. C. G. Jeynes, J. Kavanagh, D. Kirby, K. J. Kirkby, C. L. Lewis, M. J. Merchant, G . Nersisyan, R. Prasad, K. M. Prise, G. Schettino, M. Zepf, M. Borghesi, Biological effectiveness on live cells of ...

    2012

  26. [34]

    Bayart, A

    E. Bayart, A. Flacco, O. Delmas, L. Pommarel, D. Levy, M. Cavallone, F. Megnin- Chanet, E. Deutsch, V. Malka, Fast dose fractionation using ultra -short laser accelerated proton pulses can increase cancer cell mortality, which relies on functional PARP1 protein. Sci. Rep. 9, 1...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hanton, P

    F. Hanton, P. Ch audhary, D. Doria, D. Gwynne, C. Maiorino, C. Scullion, H. Ahmed, T. Marshall, K. Naughton, L. Romagnani, S. Kar, G. Schettino, P. McKenna, S. Botchway, D. R. Symes, P. P. Rajeev, K. M. Prise, M. Borghesi, DNA DSB Repair Dynamics Advanced Science Page 20 of 32...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Metzkes-Ng, F.-E

    J. Metzkes-Ng, F.-E. Brack, F. Kroll, C. Bernert, S. Bock, E. Bodenstein, M. Brand, T. E. Cowan, R. Gebhardt, S. Hans, U. Helbig, F. Horst, J. Jansen, S. D. Kraft, M. Krause, E. Leßmann, S. Löck, J. Pawelke, T. Püschel, M. Reimold, M. Rehwald, C. Richter, H. -P. Schlenvoigt, U...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Vozenin, B

    M.-C. Vozenin, B. W. Loo, S. Tantawi, P. G. Maxim, D. R. Spitz, C. Bailat, C. L. Limoli, FLASH: New intersection of physics, chemistry, biology, and cancer medicine. Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 035002 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Schulte, C

    R. Schulte, C. Johnstone, S. Boucher, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, M. Kravchenko, S. Kutsaev, B. W. Loo, M. François, B. Mustapha, K. Nakamura, E. A. Nanni, L. Obst-huebl, S. E. Sampayan, C. B. Schroeder, K. Sheng, A. M. Snijders, E. Snively, S. G. Tantawi, J. V. Tilborg, Trans...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Mazal, Y

    A. Mazal, Y. Prezado, C. Ares, L. de Marzi, A. Patriarca, R. Miralbell, V. Favaudon, FLASH and minibeams in radiation therapy: the effect of microstructures on time and space and their potential application to protontherapy. Br. J. Radiol. 93, 20190807 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Brack, F

    F.-E. Brack, F. Kroll, L. Gaus, C. Bernert, E. Beyreuther, T. E. Cowan, L. Karsch, S. Kraft, L. A. Kunz-Schughart, E. Lessmann, J. Metzkes-Ng, L. Obst-Huebl, J. Pawelke, M. Rehwald, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, U. Schramm, M. Sobiella, E. R. Szabó, T. Ziegler, K. Zeil, Spectral and spat...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Pommarel, B

    L. Pommarel, B. Vauzour, F. Mégnin-Chanet, E. Bayart, O. Delmas, F. Goudjil, C. Nauraye, V. Letellier, F. Pouzoulet, F. Schillaci, F. Romano, V. Scuderi, G. A. P. Cirrone, E. Deutsch, A. Flacco, V. Malka, Spectral and spatial shaping of a laser-produced ion beam for radiation-...

    2017

  34. [42]

    Schillaci, A

    F. Schillaci, A. Anzalone, G. A. P. Cirrone, M. Carpinelli, G. Cuttone, M. Cutroneo, C. De Martinis, D. Giove, G. Korn, M. Maggiore, L. Manti, D. Margarone, A. Musumarra, F. M. Perozziello, I. Petrovic, P. Pisciotta, M. Renis, A. Ristic -Fira, F. Romano, F. P. Romano, G. Schet...

    2014

  35. [43]

    Flacco, E

    A. Flacco, E. Bayart, L. Romagnani, M. Cavallone, L. De Marzi, C. Fouillade, C. Giaccaglia, S. Heinrich, I. Lamarre-Jouenne, J. Monzac, K. Parodi, A. Patriarca, T. Rösch, J. Advanced Science Page 21 of 32 Schreiber, L. Tischendorf, Laser driven FLASH radiobiology using a high ...

    2025

  36. [44]

    K. Liu, T. Waldrop, E. Aguilar, N. Mims, D. Neill, A. Delahoussaye, Z. Li, D. Swanson, S. H. Lin, A. C. Koong, C. M. Taniguchi, B. W. Loo, D. Mitra, E . Schüler, Redefining FLASH Radiation Therapy: The Impact of Mean Dose Rate and Dose Per Pulse in the Gastrointestinal Tract. ...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Kacem, L

    H. Kacem, L. Kunz, P. Korysko, J. Ollivier, P. Tsoutsou, A. Martinotti, V. Rieker, J. Bateman, W. Farabolini, G. Baldacchino, B. W. Loo, C. L. Limoli, M. Dosanjh, R. Corsini, M.-C. Vozenin, Modification of the microstructure of the CERN - CLEAR-VHEE beam at the picosecond scal...

    2025

  38. [46]

    B. S. Sørensen, E. Kanouta, C. Ankjærgaard, L. Kristensen, J. G. Johansen, M. K. Sitarz, C. E. Andersen, C. Grau, P. Poulsen, Proton FLASH: Impact of Dose Rate and Split Dose on Acute Skin Toxicity in a Murine Model. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 120, 265–275 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Favaudon, R

    V. Favaudon, R. Labarbe, C. L. Limoli, Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect. Med. Phys. 49, 2068–2081 (2022)

  40. [48]

    N. W. Colangelo, E. I. Azzam, The Importance and Clinical Implications of FLASH Ultra-High Dose-Rate Studies for Proton and Heavy Ion Radiotherapy. Radiat. Res. 193, 1–4 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Manti, F

    L. Manti, F. M. Perozziello, M. Borghesi, G. Candiano, P. Chaudhary, G. A. P. Cirrone, D. Doria, D. Gwynne, R. Leanza, K. M. Prise, L. Romagnani, F. Romano, V. Scuderi, A. Tramontana, The radiobiology of laser-driven particle beams: Focus on sub-lethal responses of normal huma...

    2017

  42. [50]

    J. Han, Z. Mei, C. Lu, J. Qian, Y. Liang, X. Sun, Z. Pan, D. Kong, S. Xu, Z. Liu, Y. Gao, G. Qi, Y. Shou, S. Chen, Z. Cao, Y. Zhao, C. Lin, Y. Zhao, Y. Geng, J. Chen, X. Yan, W. Ma, G. Yang, Ultra-High Dose Rate FLASH Irradiation Induced Radio-Resistance of Normal Fibroblast C...

    2021

  43. [51]

    T. F. Rösch, Z. Szabó, D. Haffa, J. Bin, S. Brunner, F. S. Englbrecht, A. A. Friedl, Y. Gao, J. Hartmann, P. Hilz, C. Kreuzer, F. H. Lindner, T. M. Ostermayr, R. Polanek, M. Speicher, E. R. Szabó, D. Taray, T. Tőkés, M. Würl, K. Parodi, K. Hideghéty, J. Schreiber, A feasibilit...

    2020

  44. [52]

    Gieringer, J

    M. Gieringer, J. Gosepath, R. Naim, Radiotherapy and wound healing: Principles, management and prospects (Review). Oncol. Rep. 26, 299–307 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    B. S. Sørensen, E. Kanouta, C. Ankjærgaard, L. Kristensen, J. G. Johansen, M. K. Sitarz, C. E. Andersen, C. Grau, P. Poulsen, Proton FLASH: Impact of Dose Rate and Split Dose on Acute Skin Toxicity in a Murine Model. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 120, 265–275 (2024). Advanced Science...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Nakamura, H

    K. Nakamura, H. S. Mao, A. J. Gonsalves, H. Vincent i, D. E. Mittelberger, J. Daniels, A. Magana, C. Toth, W. P. Leemans, Diagnostics, Control and Performance Parameters for the BELLA High Repetition Rate Petawatt Class Laser. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 53, 1200121 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    A. C. Dombrowsky, J. Schauer, M. Sammer, A. Blutke, D. W. M. Walsh, B. Schwarz, S. Bartzsch, A. Feuchtinger, J. Reindl, S. E. Combs, G. Dollinger, T. E. Schmid, Acute Skin Damage and Late Radiation -Induced Fibrosis and Inflammation in Murine Ears after High-Dose Irradiation. ...

    2019

  48. [56]

    Hakimi, L

    S. Hakimi, L. Obst-Huebl, A. Huebl, K. Nakamura, S. S. Bulanov, S. Steinke, W. P. Leemans, Z. Kober, T. M. Ostermayr, T. Schenkel, A. J. Gonsalves, J. -L. Vay, J. van Tilborg, C. Toth, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, Laser–solid interaction studies enabled by the ...

    2022

  49. [57]

    High power commissioning of BELLA iP2 up to 17 J L

    L. Obst-Huebl, K. Nakamura, S. Hakimi, J. D. Chant, A. Jewell, B. Stassel, A. M. Snijders, A. J. Gonsalves, J. V. Tilborg, Z. Eis entraut, Z. Harvey, “High power commissioning of BELLA iP2 up to 17 J L.” in Proceedings Volume 12583, Applying Laser- Driven Particle Acceleration...

    2023

  50. [58]

    S. C. Wilks, A. B. Lan gdon, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, M. Singh, S. Hatchett, M. H. Key, D. Pennington, A. Mackinnon, R. A. Snavely, Energetic proton generation in ultra - intense laser--solid interactions. Phys. Plasmas 8, 542–549 (2001)

    2001

  51. [59]

    Ter -Avetisyan, M

    S. Ter -Avetisyan, M. Schnürer, R. Polst er, P. V. Nickles, W. Sandner, First demonstration of collimation and monochromatisation of a laser accelerated proton burst. Laser Part. Beams 26, 637–642 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Nishiuchi, I

    M. Nishiuchi, I. Daito, M. Ikegami, H. Daido, M. Mori, S. Orimo, K. Ogura, A. Sagisaka, A. Yogo, A. S. Pirozhkov, H. Sugiyama, H. Kiriyama, H. Okada, S. Kanazawa, S. Kondo, T. Shimomura, M. Tanoue, Y. Nakai, H. Sasao, D. Wakai, H. Sakaki, P. Bolton, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, J. ...

    2009

  53. [61]

    T. F. Rösch, Z. Szabó, D. Haffa, J. Bin, S. Brunner, F. S. Englbrecht, A. A. Friedl, Y. Gao, J. Hartmann, P. Hilz, C. Kreuzer, F. H. Lindner, T. M. Ostermayr, R. Polanek, M. Speicher, E. R. Szabó, D. Taray, T. Tokés, M. Würl, K. Parodi, K. Hideghéty, J. Schreiber, A feasibilit...

    2020

  54. [62]

    Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material

    K. Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material. Nucl. Instrum. Methods 169, 1–10 (1980). Advanced Science Page 23 of 32

    1980

  55. [63]

    Makino, M

    K. Makino, M. Berz, COSY INFINITY Versio n 9. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 558, 346–350 (2006)

    2006

  56. [64]

    De Chant, K

    J. De Chant, K. Nakamura, Q. Ji, L. Obst -Huebl, S. Barber, A. M. Snijders, C. G. R. Geddes, J. van Tilborg, A. J. Gonsalves, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, Modeling and design of compact, permanent-magnet transport systems for highly divergent, broad energy spread laser-driven p...

    2025

  57. [65]

    L. D. Geulig, L. Obst -Huebl, K. Nakamura, J. Bin, Q. Ji, S. Steinke, A. Snijders, J.-H. Mao, E. Blakely, A. J. Gonsalves, S. S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, M. Roth, T. Schenkel, Online Charge Measurement for Petawatt Laser- Driven Ion...

    2022

  58. [66]

    Schollmeier, M

    M. Schollmeier, M. Geissel, A. B. Sefkow, K. A. Flippo, Improved spectral data unfolding for radiochromic film imaging spectroscopy of laser -accelerated proton beams. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 043305 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Girst, C

    S. Girst, C. Greubel, J. Rein dl, C. Siebenwirth, O. Zlobinskaya, D. W. M. Walsh, K. Ilicic, M. Aichler, A. Walch, J. J. Wilkens, G. Multhoff, G. Dollinger, T. E. Schmid, Proton Minibeam Radiation Therapy Reduces Side Effects in an In Vivo Mouse Ear Model. Int. J. Radiat. Onco...

    2016

  60. [68]

    Masood, T

    U. Masood, T. E. Cowan, W. Enghardt, K. M. Hofmann, L. Karsch, F. Kroll, U. Schramm, J. J. Wilkens, J. Pawelke, A light -weight compact proton gantry design with a novel dose delivery system for broad-energetic laser-accelerated beams. Phys. Med. Biol. 62, 5531–5555 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Dosimetry of laser-accelerated carbon ions for cell irradiation at ultra -high dose rate

    G. Milluzzo, H. Ahmed, L. Romagnani, D. Doria, P. Chaudhary, C. Maiorino, A. McIlvenny, A. McMurray, K. Polin, Y. Katzir, R. Pattathil, P. McKenna, K. Prise, M. Borghesi, “Dosimetry of laser-accelerated carbon ions for cell irradiation at ultra -high dose rate” in Journal of P...

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Singers Sørensen, M

    B. Singers Sørensen, M. Krzysztof Sitarz, C. Ankjærgaard, J. Johansen, C. E. Andersen, E. Kanouta, C. Overgaard, C. Grau, P. Poulsen, In vivo validation and tissue sparing factor for acute damage of pencil beam scanning proton FLASH. Radiother. Oncol. 167, 109–115 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Paganetti, Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy

    H. Paganetti, Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys. Med. Biol. 59, R419 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    W. Deng, Y. Yang, C. Liu , M. Bues, R. Mohan, W. W. Wong, R. H. Foote, S. H. Patel, W. Liu, A Critical Review of LET -Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plan Evaluation and Optimization for Head and Neck Cancer Management. Int. J. Part. Ther. 8, 36–49 (2021). Advanced Sc...

    2021

  65. [73]

    J. Bin, K. Allinger, W. Assmann, G. Dollinger, G. A. Drexler, A. A. Friedl, D. Habs, P. Hilz, R. Hoerlein, N. Humble, S. Karsch, K. Khrennikov, D. Kiefer, F. Krausz, W. Ma, D. Michalski, M. Molls, S. Raith, S. Reinhardt, B. Röper, T. E. Schmid, T. Tajima, J. Wenz, O. Zlobinska...

    2012

  66. [74]

    C. L. Limoli, E. A. Kramár, A. Almeida, B. Petit, V. Grilj, J. E. Baulch, P. Ballesteros-Zebadua, B. W. Loo, M. A. Wood, M.-C. Vozenin, The sparing effect of FLASH- RT on synaptic plasticity is maintained in mice with standard fractionation. Radiother. Oncol. 186, 109767 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Kiani, T

    L. Kiani, T. Zhou, S. -W. Bahk, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler , E. M. Campbell, Z. Chang, E. Chowdhury, M. Downer, Q. Du, E. Esarey, A. Galvanauskas, T. Galvin, C. Häfner, D. Hoffmann, C. Joshi, M. Kanskar, W. Lu, C. Menoni, M. Messerly, S. B. Mirov, M. Palmer, I. Pogorelsky, M. Po...

    2023

  68. [76]

    L. Obst, S. Göde, M. Rehwald, F. -E. Brack, J. Branco, S. Bock, M. Bussmann, T. E. Cowan, C. B. Curry, F. Fiuza, M. Gauthier, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, A. Huebl, U. Hübner, A. Irman, L. Kazak, J. B. Kim, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, M. Loeser, J. Metzke s, R. Mishra, C. Rödel, H.-P. Schl...

    2017

  69. [77]

    M. J. V. Streeter, G. D. Glenn, S. DiIorio, F. Treffert, B. Loughran, H. Ahmed, S. Astbury, M. Borghesi, N. Bourgeois, C. B. Curry, S. J. D. Dann, N. P. Dover, T. Dzelzainis, O. C. Ettlinger, M. Gauthier, L. Giuffrida, S. H. Glenzer, R. J. Gray, J. S. Green, G. S. Hicks, C. Hy...

    2025

  70. [78]

    J. T. Morrison, S. Feister, K. D. Frische, D. R. Austin, G. K. Ngirmang, N. R. Murphy, C. Orban, E. A. Chowdhury, W. M. Roquemore, MeV proton acceleration at kHz repetition rate from ultra-intense laser liquid interaction. New J. Phys. 20, 022001 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. V. Minervini, L. Bromberg, E. Forton, J. Mandrillon, P. C. Michael, A. Radovinsky, A compact, lightweight, variable-energy cyclotron for conventional and FLASH ion beam radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 15 (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    L. D. Geulig, L. Obst-Huebl, K. Nakamura, J. Bin, Q. Ji, S. Steinke, A. M. Snijders, J.-H. Mao, E. A. Blakely, A. J. Gonsalves, S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, M. Roth, T. Schenkel, Online charge measurement for petawatt laser- driven i...

    2022

  73. [81]

    Nürnberg, M

    F. Nürnberg, M. Schollmeier, E. Brambrink, A. Blažević, D. C. Carroll, K. Flippo, D. C. Gautier, M. Geibel, K. Harres, B. M. Hegelich, O. Lundh, K. Markey, P. McKenna, D. Neely, J. Schreiber, M. Roth, Radiochromic film imaging spectroscopy of laser -accelerated proton beams. R...

    2009

  74. [82]

    Vallières, C

    S. Vallières, C. Bienvenue, P. Puyuelo -Valdes, M. Salvadori, E. d’Humières, F. Schiettekatte, P. Antici, Low-energy proton calibration and energy-dependence linearization of EBT-XD radiochromic films. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 083301 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    Particle Data Group, R. L. Workman, V. D. Burkert, V. Crede, E. Klempt, U. Thoma, L. Tiator, K. Aga she, G. Aielli, B. C. Allanach, C. Amsler, M. Antonelli, E. C. Aschenauer, D. M. Asner, H. Baer, S. Banerjee, R. M. Barnett, L. Baudis, C. W. Bauer, J. J. Beatty, V. I. Belousov...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.