Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 55 references

Integrating nano- and micrometer-scale energy deposition models for mechanistic prediction of radiation-induced DNA damage and cell survival

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MT-GSM2 builds survival domains directly from DBSCAN clusters of simulated DNA double-strand breaks, predicting proton RBE10 across 4–20 keV/µm from parameters fit at a single LET.

desk verdict The cross-LET proton RBE10 prediction is a genuine non-circular test and it passes; the paper's main soft spot is the never-tested DBSCAN clustering rule, not the core integration. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00929 v4 pith:YUPX43CV submitted 2025-07-01 physics.bio-ph

Giulio Bordieri , Marta Missiaggia , Gianluca Lattanzi , Carmen Villagrasa , Yann Perrot , Francesco G. Cordoni This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords radiation-inducedDNAdamagedouble-strandbreakclusteringmicrodosimetrynanodosimetryrelativebiologicaleffectivenessprotontherapyDBSCANcellsurvivalmodeling
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

The paper argues that cell survival after radiation can be predicted from the spatial positions and chromosome identities of double-strand breaks (DSBs), without relying on artificial subnuclear domains. It introduces MT-GSM2, which feeds DSB maps from the MINAS-TIRITH simulator into the GSM2 survival model and uses DBSCAN clustering to let simulated damage define the model's domains. The central test is proton RBE10 for H460 cells: parameters fit only at 11.1 keV/µm reproduce experimental survival across roughly 4 to over 20 keV/µm, and X-ray survival for HUVEC cells is also reproduced. If correct, the model offers a mechanistic bridge from nanodosimetric DNA damage patterns to clinical relative biological effectiveness, relevant to biologically optimized proton therapy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the chromosome-aware DBSCAN cluster of DSBs, which replaces GSM2's artificial domains. Under the clustering rules, weighted DSBs within 1 µm of each other and on the same chromosome form a cluster, and the number of sublethal lesions in each cluster enters the GSM2 survival product $$S_n(z_n|D_{\text{abs}}) = \prod_j \prod_x \frac{r x}{(a+r)x + b x(x-1)}.$$ This turns spatial damage coordinates into biophysical domains with no fitted domain parameters, allowing the LET dependence of survival to emerge from the simulated DSB topology rather than from per-LET calibration.

What would settle it

Take a proton LET in the covered range that was not used for fitting, say 16 keV/µm, and compare MT-GSM2 predictions—with parameters fixed at LET = 11.1 keV/µm—against new H460 clonogenic survival data; a deviation larger than experimental uncertainty would falsify the fixed-parameter transferability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that treating each DBSCAN cluster of DSBs—restricted to DSBs on the same chromosome and within 1 µm of each other—as an independent GSM2 domain makes the fitted repair and interaction rates transferable across LET and across radiation type. DSBs weighted by their complexity index are grouped into clusters; each cluster then contributes a factor to cell survival through GSM2's reaction scheme, and averaging over a cell population gives the survival curve. With parameters fit only to H460 survival at LET = 11.1 keV/µm, the model reproduces RBE10 values over the full tested proton LET range, with predicted RBE10 exceeding the clinical reference of 1.1 and approaching experimental values at high LET. The authors present this as one of the first consistent multiscale models linking nanodosimetric and microdosimetric representations of radiation to cell survival.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that only DSBs within 1 µm of each other and on the same chromosome can interact lethally, and that distinct DBSCAN clusters never interact; if this clustering rule is wrong, predicted survival changes even with identical fitted rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At LET around 20 keV/µm, predicted RBE10 exceeds 3, well above the fixed clinical value of 1.1; the paper argues that constant-RBE proton therapy underestimates biological effects near the distal edge of the spread-out Bragg peak.
  • Parameters fit only at LET = 11.1 keV/µm for H460 reproduce survival across the whole tested LET range, so the cluster-based domain structure, not per-LET recalibration, carries the LET dependence.
  • The ratio of clusters to total DSBs and the mean cluster size both grow with LET, and per-nucleus survival tracks clustering, supporting the claim that nanodosimetric damage topology drives the RBE rise.
  • Because the same framework reproduces 220 kV X-ray survival for HUVEC cells, a single parameter set can span photon and proton qualities, supporting use in mixed-field treatment planning.
  • Expanding the simulator's energy database to clinical proton energies, helium ions, and carbon ions is presented as the direct path to broader clinical applicability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model's reliance on the 1 µm and same-chromosome rules implies a testable prediction: controlled changes in chromosome territory organization should shift survival for the same LET and dose, even when total DSB yield is unchanged.
  • If the cluster-independence assumption is right, pairwise DSB interactions are the dominant lethal channel at high LET; one could estimate the interaction rate b directly from time-resolved co-localization of repair foci.
  • Extending the framework to carbon ions would provide a sharper test, because MT-GSM2 would predict an RBE–LET curve for heavier ions with no new free parameters beyond the DBSCAN rules.
  • The fitted second-order rate b becoming comparable to the repair rate r suggests that approaches neglecting pairwise damage interactions may need artificial domain sizes to compensate; data-derived clusters could replace those domains more generally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents MT-GSM2, a multiscale model that feeds DSB coordinates and chromosome identities from the MINAS-TIRITH Geant4-DNA simulation into the GSM2 survival model. DBSCAN groups DSBs on the same chromosome within 1 um into clusters, which replace GSM2's artificial domains; Eq. (2) computes survival as a product over clusters. GSM2 parameters a, b, and r are fitted to HUVEC 220 kV X-ray survival data and to H460 proton survival at 11.1 keV/um, and the model is then used to predict H460 RBE10 across approximately 4-20 keV/um. The central quantitative claim is that this cross-LET prediction matches the Patel/Bronk experiments, supporting the clustering-based domain concept.

Significance. The design has real strengths: the H460 prediction is a genuine cross-LET test because a, b, and r are fixed at a single LET; the chromosome-aware DBSCAN domain definition is a conceptually important alternative to fitted MKM domains; the Geant4 phase-space replication and the residual comparison with TLK are useful benchmarking elements. If the clustering rule is robust, the framework would be a valuable mechanistic bridge between nanodosimetric damage patterns and cell survival. However, the paper does not currently demonstrate that robustness: the domain-defining parameters are not varied, no uncertainties are attached to predicted survival or RBE, and the HUVEC agreement is a fit rather than a prediction. These gaps must be closed before the "excellent agreement" claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Eq. (2)] The DBSCAN clustering rule is load-bearing for the cross-LET prediction. Because a, b, and r are fit at 11.1 keV/um, the fit can absorb the cluster statistics at that single LET, so the predicted LET dependence is carried almost entirely by the number and size of the DBSCAN clusters. The 1 um threshold and the same-chromosome restriction are not fitted, but they are also not varied; Section 2.3 states the threshold is chosen a priori, and Section 2.5 calls the domain definition "parameter-free," which is inaccurate. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over epsilon (e.g., 0.5-2 um) and over the chromosome restriction, showing RBE10 and SF curves, and state how the conclusions change. Without this, the agreement in Fig. 3.4 could be an artifact of the clustering rule.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 3.6] No statistical uncertainties are reported for the predicted survival fractions, RBE10 values, or fitted parameters a, b, and r. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show point predictions only, and Eq. (4) is minimized without confidence intervals. Since Ncells = 2000 and the phase-space sampling are stochastic inputs, the "excellent agreement" in Fig. 3.4 is not quantitatively assessable. Please add error bars or confidence intervals, e.g., by bootstrapping over simulated cells or by repeating the parameter fit on resampled data.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 1] The HUVEC X-ray comparison is not an independent validation. The endothelial a, b, and r are fitted to the same 220 kV X-ray survival data shown in Fig. 3.3a, so the small residuals in Fig. 3.3b are a goodness-of-fit result, not a predictive test. The text should label this as calibration, and the claim in Section 4.2 that MT-GSM2 "predicts the biological effects of photons... from first principles" should be softened or supported by a withheld-dose or independent-photon test.
  4. [Section 2.4 and Eq. (2)] The mapping from the DSB complexity index i to the number of sublethal lesions x_j is not written explicitly. The sentence "DSB-type damages with i and i+1 account for the same number of sublethal lesions" implies x_j = sum over DSBs of ceil((i+1)/2), but the paper never gives the formula. Because survival in Eq. (2) depends exponentially on x_j, this mapping is as important as the clustering rule. Please state the mapping in equation form and test its sensitivity to a plausible alternative (e.g., x_j = sum (i+1)).
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and several section headers contain rendering artifacts such as "keV=—m" and "\gsm"; please fix the typography.
  2. [Section 2.2] "cathegorized" should be "categorized"; use consistent spelling of "sublethal" throughout.
  3. [Section 3.2] In the caption of Figure 3.3, "MINAS-TIRTIH" should be "MINAS-TIRITH".
  4. [Equation (4)] The quantity is labeled NMSE, but the expression is a dose-weighted squared error normalized by S(D); please clarify the normalization or rename the quantity.
  5. [Section 4.1] The claim of a "strong correlation between the number of DSB clusters and RBE10" is not directly shown by Figure 3.6, which plots cluster-to-total ratio versus LET; either add a direct RBE10-versus-clustering panel or rephrase the statement.
  6. [Section 3.5 and Figure 3.7] The correlation between high clustering and reduced survival is built into Eq. (2), since survival is computed from the clusters; presenting it as independent support for the model's mechanism is misleading.
  7. [Section 2.6] Please specify which proton experiments were excluded because their phase space exceeded the MINAS-TIRITH database limits, and whether Figure 3.4 includes all remaining experimental points.
  8. [Table 1] The row for HUVEC cells is labeled "Endothelial"; use the same cell-line name as in the text for consistency.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The proton cross-LET prediction is independent, but the HUVEC X-ray comparison is an in-sample fit and the clustering-survival correlation is built into Eq. (2).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 and Section 3.6, Table 1]
    "The model’s predicted SF curve (MT-GSM2, red) is compared to experimental data (blue) from Paget et al. [33] in Figure 3.3a. The results demonstrate strong agreement across all tested doses. [...] Table 1 reports the fitted GSM2 parameters for the studied cell lines."

    The endothelial cell line row in Table 1 gives a, b, r for the HUVEC 220 kV X-ray data. Section 2.5 states that a, b, r are calibrated by minimizing the NMSE between predicted and experimental cell survival. Therefore the red curve in Figure 3.3a is the fitted model evaluated on the very survival data used for fitting; calling it a 'prediction' and using its agreement as validation is circular. The agreement is a consequence of the optimization, not an independent test.

  2. self definitional [Eq. (2) and Section 3.5, Figure 3.7]
    "Sn(zn|Dabs) = product over clusters of xj x=1 rx / ((a+r)x + bx(x-1)) [...] The colormap encodes a clustering index defined as the ratio of number of clusters to total DSBs within each nucleus. Lower values of this index correspond to more severe clustering (i.e., more DSBs per cluster). This analysis reveals a correlation between high clustering and reduced cell survival, particularly pronounced at higher LET values."

    Equation (2) defines the survival probability as a product over clusters where each cluster with x sublethal lesions contributes a factor containing x and x(x-1). Thus, for fixed parameters, a nucleus with more DSBs per cluster necessarily has a lower computed survival. The correlation displayed in Figure 3.7 is therefore not an empirical discovery but a mathematical consequence of the model's defining equation. Presenting it as evidence that 'nanodosimetric features shape the biological response' is circular: the response was constructed to depend on cluster size in exactly this way.

full rationale

The proton RBE10 predictions for H460 cells are the strongest independent part of the paper: the GSM2 parameters a, b, r were fitted only to the 11.1 keV/um survival curve and then used to predict survival at other LET values without refitting. That cross-LET transfer is a genuine predictive test, though its validity depends on the a priori DBSCAN clustering rules. However, two load-bearing presentations are circular. First, the HUVEC X-ray 'prediction' in Figure 3.3a is a fit to the same survival data that supplied the endothelial parameters in Table 1, so the reported agreement is not independent validation. Second, the claimed correlation between clustering and reduced survival in Figure 3.7 is built directly into Eq. (2), where survival is a product over clusters with per-cluster lesion count in the argument; this is a definitional identity, not an emergent finding. These are partial circularities that affect the presentation of validation evidence, while the central cross-LET proton prediction retains independent content. The self-citations to GSM2 and MINAS-TIRITH are normal methodological references and do not, by themselves, make the derivation circular; the circularity is in the fitted-input-as-prediction and self-definitional correlation steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on six fitted GSM2 rates (a, b, r per cell line), two hand-chosen DBSCAN parameters, and a hand-chosen complexity-to-lesion mapping. The key new assumption is that DBSCAN clusters act as independent GSM2 domains, which is not derived from data.

free parameters (9)
  • a (H460) = 6.45e-3 h^-1
    Spontaneous sublethal-to-lethal conversion rate; fit to H460 SF at LET=11.1 keV/um (Section 3.6, Table 1).
  • b (H460) = 2.90 h^-1
    Pairwise interaction rate of sublethal lesions; fit at LET=11.1 keV/um.
  • r (H460) = 1.74 h^-1
    Repair rate; fit at LET=11.1 keV/um.
  • a (HUVEC) = 7.21e-2 h^-1
    Fit to 220 kV X-ray HUVEC SF data (Section 3.6).
  • b (HUVEC) = 2.83e-1 h^-1
    Fit to 220 kV X-ray HUVEC SF data.
  • r (HUVEC) = 4.84 h^-1
    Fit to 220 kV X-ray HUVEC SF data.
  • DBSCAN distance threshold (epsilon) = 1 um
    Chosen a priori, not fitted; sets the cluster scale and directly shapes LET dependence of survival (Section 2.3).
  • DBSCAN minimum cluster size = 1 DSB
    Fixed by hand (Section 2.3).
  • Complexity-to-sublethal-lesion mapping = floor(i/2)+1
    Assumes DSBs with complexity i and i+1 contribute equally as one sublethal lesion per pair; chosen by hand (Section 2.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GSM2 reaction kinetics and survival formula Eq. (2) are valid.
    The reaction scheme (X repaired, X to Y, X+X to Y) and the product survival formula are taken from prior GSM2 work [11,21]; invoked in Sections 2.2 and 2.4.
  • ad hoc to paper DBSCAN clusters behave as independent GSM2 domains.
    Section 2.4 states 'Once DSB clusters are defined, they serve as functional analogs to domains in GSM2'; assumes no interactions between clusters.
  • ad hoc to paper Only DSBs on the same chromosome and within 1 um can interact lethally.
    Rules (iii) and (iv) in Section 2.3; this defines which DSBs are grouped and thus determines the survival calculation.
  • domain assumption MINAS-TIRITH precomputed databases and Geant4 physics lists accurately model DSB induction.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.6; DSB coordinates, complexity, and chromosome IDs are inputs on which the whole framework rests.
  • domain assumption Sampling specific energy z_n from the microdosimetric multi-event distribution captures cellular stochasticity.
    Section 2.4; survival is averaged over z_n samples from MINAS-TIRITH.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating nano- and micrometer-scale energy deposition models for mechanistic prediction of radiation-induced DNA damage and cell survival." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUPX43CV

@misc{pith2026250700929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating nano- and micrometer-scale energy deposition models for mechanistic prediction of radiation-induced DNA damage and cell survival},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUPX43CV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00929}
}
read the original abstract

We present an integrated modeling framework that combines the Generalized Stochastic Microdosimetric Model (GSM2), used to predict cell survival fractions, with MINAS-TIRITH, a fast and efficient Geant4 DNA-based tool for simulating radiation-induced DNA damage in cell populations. This approach enables the generation of spatially and structurally resolved double-strand break (DSB) distributions, capturing key features such as damage complexity and chromosome specificity. A novel application of the DBSCAN clustering algorithm is introduced to group DSBs at the micrometer scale. This allows the identification of physical aggregates of DNA damage and their association with subnuclear domains, providing a direct link to the cell survival probability as predicted by \gsm. The model was validated using experimental data from HUVEC cells irradiated with 220 kV X-rays and H460 cells exposed to protons over a wide linear energy transfer (LET) range, from approximately 4 keV/{\mu}m to over 20 keV/{\mu}m. Results show excellent agreement between simulations and experimental survival probabilities, making this one of the first consistent multi-scale models to bridge nanodosimetric and microdosimetric representations of radiation with biological outcomes such as cell survival. By incorporating the inherent stochastic nature of radiation-matter interactions, this framework effectively connects the physical properties of the radiation field to the biological response at the cellular level. Its accuracy across various radiation types and energies supports its potential for use in biologically optimized radiotherapy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00929 by the authors.

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. 3D visualization of DSBs and clustering results. Each circle represents a DSB, with size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Examples of clustered DSB distribution under varying LET and dose conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. MT-GSM2 prediction for HUVEC endothelial cells irradiated with 220 kV X-rays. 3.4 DSB classification from MINAS-TIRITH The total number of DSBs per Gray per Giga base-pairs as a function of LET (purple), and the classification of their composing strand breaks by origin (physical in green, chemical in blue, or hybrid in red) is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Comparison of RBE10 values for protons irradiation on H460 cells. Red circles show the predicted values by the model, and the blue circles show experimental data from [34]. To further explore how damage clustering influences biological outcomes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: Left panel: number of DSBs per Gray per Giga base-pairs against LET from MINAS￾TIRITH. DSBs are divided into types describing the origin of each damage. Purely physical DSBs are shown in green, purely chemical in blue, while damages caused by a hybrid process are rep…
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6: Cluster-to-total DSB ratio vs LET. The colormap reflects mean DSBs per cluster, i.e. mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3_6.png]
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7: Surviving fraction plotted against absorbed dose centered at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baskar, K

    R. Baskar, K. A. Lee, R. Yeo, K.-W. Yeoh, Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions, International journal of medical sciences 9 (3) (2012) 193

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Durante, J

    M. Durante, J. Flanz, Charged particle beams to cure cancer: strengths and challenges, in: Seminars in Oncology, Vol. 46, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 219–225

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    N. Ipe, G. Fehrenbacher, I. Gudowska, H. Paganetti, J. Schippers, S. Roesler, et al., Ptcog publica- tions sub-committee task group on shielding design and radiation safety of charged particle therapy facilities, PTCOG Report 1 (2010). 14

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    R. B. Hawkins, A statistical theory of cell killing by radiation of varying linear energy transfer, Radiation research 140 (3) (1994) 366–374

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Y. Kase, T. Kanai, Y. Matsumoto, Y. Furusawa, H. Okamoto, T. Asaba, M. Sakama, H. Shinoda, Microdosimetric measurements and estimation of human cell survival for heavy-ion beams, Radiation research 166 (4) (2006) 629–638

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    O. N. Vassiliev, Formulation of the multi-hit model with a non-poisson distribution of hits, Interna- tional Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 83 (4) (2012) 1311–1316

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Friedrich, M

    T. Friedrich, M. Durante, M. Scholz, The local effect model—principles and applications, The Health Risks of Extraterrestrial Environments (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Manganaro, G

    L. Manganaro, G. Russo, R. Cirio, F. Dalmasso, S. Giordanengo, V. Monaco, S. Muraro, R. Sacchi, A. Vignati, A. Attili, A monte carlo approach to the microdosimetric kinetic model to account for dose rate time structure effects in ion beam therapy with application in treatment planning simulations, Medical physics 44 (4) (2017) 1577–1589

    work page 2017

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    O. N. Vassiliev, Microdosimetry. elements of stochastic transport theory, in: Monte Carlo Methods for Radiation Transport, Springer, 2017, pp. 195–223

    2017

  2. [10]

    Inaniwa, N

    T. Inaniwa, N. Kanematsu, Adaptation of stochastic microdosimetric kinetic model for charged- particle therapy treatment planning, Physics in Medicine & Biology 63 (9) (2018) 095011

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cordoni, M

    F. Cordoni, M. Missiaggia, A. Attili, S. Welford, E. Scifoni, C. La Tessa, Generalized stochastic microdosimetric model: The main formulation, Physical Review E 103 (1) (2021) 012412

    2021

  4. [12]

    F. G. Cordoni, M. Missiaggia, C. La Tessa, E. Scifoni, Multiple levels of stochasticity accounted for in different radiation biophysical models: from physics to biology, International Journal of Radiation Biology (2022) 1–16

    2022

  5. [13]

    S. J. McMahon, A. L. McNamara, J. Schuemann, H. Paganetti, K. M. Prise, A general mechanistic model enables predictions of the biological effectiveness of different qualities of radiation, Scientific reports 7 (1) (2017) 1–14

    2017

  6. [14]

    A. L. McNamara, J. Schuemann, H. Paganetti, A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (rbe) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data, Physics in Medicine & Biology 60 (21) (2015) 8399

    2015

  7. [15]

    F. G. Cordoni, M. Missiaggia, E. Scifoni, C. La Tessa, An artificial intelligence-based model for cell killing prediction: development, validation and explainability analysis of the anakin model, Physics in Medicine & Biology 68 (8) (2023) 085017

    2023

  8. [16]

    L. Tian, C. Hahn, A. Lühr, An ion-independent phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (rbe) model for proton therapy, Radiotherapy and Oncology 174 (2022) 69–76

    2022

  9. [17]

    D. B. Flint, S. J. Bright, C. McFadden, T. Konishi, D. K. Martinus, M. Manandhar, M. B. Kacem, L. Bronk, G. O. Sawakuchi, An empirical model of carbon-ion relative biological effectiveness based on the linear correlation between radiosensitivity to photons and carbon ions, Phy...

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. Hu, W. Zhou, X. Luo, R. Qiu, J. Li, Correlation between dna double-strand break distribution in 3d genome and ionizing radiation-induced cell death, Radiation Research (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Sakata, R

    D. Sakata, R. Hirayama, W.-G. Shin, M. Belli, M. A. Tabocchini, R. D. Stewart, O. Belov, M. A. Bernal, M.-C. Bordage, J. Brown, et al., Prediction of dna rejoining kinetics and cell survival after proton irradiation for v79 cells using geant4-dna (vol 105, 102508, 2023), PHYSI...

    2024

  12. [20]

    dsbandrepair

    T. N. Hoang, Y. Thibaut, K. Chatzipapas, D. Sakata, S. Incerti, C. Villagrasa, Y. Perrot, et al., “dsbandrepair”–an updated geant4-dna simulation tool for evaluating the radiation-induced dna dam- age and its repair, Physica Medica 124 (2024) 103422

    2024

  13. [21]

    F. G. Cordoni, M. Missiaggia, E. Scifoni, C. La Tessa, Cell survival computation via the generalized stochastic microdosimetric model (gsm2); part i: The theoretical framework, Radiation research 197 (3) (2022) 218–232. 15

    2022

  14. [22]

    F. G. Cordoni, On the emergence of the deviation from a poisson law in stochastic mathematical models for radiation-induced dna damage: A system size expansion, Entropy 25 (9) (2023) 1322

    2023

  15. [23]

    F. G. Cordoni, A spatial measure-valued model for radiation-induced dna damage kinetics and repair under protracted irradiation condition, Journal of Mathematical Biology 88 (2) (2024) 21

    2024

  16. [24]

    Missiaggia, F

    M. Missiaggia, F. Cordoni, E. Scifoni, C. L. Tessa, Cell survival computation via the generalized stochastic microdosimetric model (gsm2); part ii: Numerical results, Radiation Research (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bordieri, M

    G. Bordieri, M. Missiaggia, G. Cartechini, M. Battestini, L. Bronk, F. Guan, D. Grosshans, P. Rai, E. Scifoni, C. La Tessa, et al., Validation of the generalized stochastic microdosimetric model (gsm2) over a broad range of let and particle beam type: a unique model for accura...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Thibaut, G

    Y. Thibaut, G. Gonon, J. S. Martinez, M. Petit, A. Vaurijoux, G. Gruel, C. Villagrasa, S. Incerti, Y.Perrot, Minastirith: anewtoolforsimulatingradiation-induceddnadamageatthecellpopulation level, Physics in Medicine & Biology 68 (3) (2023) 034002

    2023

  19. [27]

    Thibaut, G

    Y. Thibaut, G. Gonon, J. Martinez, M. Petit, R. Babut, A. Vaurijoux, G. Gruel, C. Villagrasa, S. Incerti, Y. Perrot, Experimental validation in a neutron exposure frame of the minas tirith for cell damage simulation, Physics in Medicine & Biology 68 (22) (2023) 225008

    2023

  20. [28]

    Friedrich, K

    T. Friedrich, K. Ilicic, C. Greubel, S. Girst, J. Reindl, M. Sammer, B. Schwarz, C. Siebenwirth, D. W. Walsh, T. E. Schmid, et al., Dna damage interactions on both nanometer and micrometer scale determine overall cellular damage, Scientific Reports 8 (1) (2018) 16063

    2018

  21. [29]

    R. Grün, T. Friedrich, E. Traneus, M. Scholz, Is the dose-averaged let a reliable predictor for the relative biological effectiveness?, Medical physics 46 (2) (2019) 1064–1074

    2019

  22. [30]

    Paganetti, C

    H. Paganetti, C. B. Simone II, W. R. Bosch, D. Haas-Kogan, D. G. Kirsch, H. Li, X. Liang, W. Liu, A. Mahajan, M. D. Story, et al., Nrg oncology white paper on the relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy, International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    V. E. Bellinzona, F. Cordoni, M. Missiaggia, F. Tommasino, E. Scifoni, C. La Tessa, A. Attili, Linking microdosimetric measurements to biological effectiveness in ion beam therapy: A review of theoretical aspects of mkm and other models, Frontiers in Physics (2021) 623

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kundrát, W

    P. Kundrát, W. Friedland, J. Becker, M. Eidemüller, A. Ottolenghi, G. Baiocco, Analytical formu- las representing track-structure simulations on dna damage induced by protons and light ions at radiotherapy-relevant energies, Scientific Reports 10 (1) (2020) 15775

    2020

  25. [33]

    Paget, M

    V. Paget, M. Ben Kacem, M. Dos Santos, M. A. Benadjaoud, F. Soysouvanh, V. Buard, T. Georges, A.Vaurijoux, G.Gruel, A.François, etal., Multiparametricradiobiologicalassaysshowthatvariation of x-ray energy strongly impacts relative biological effectiveness: comparison between 2...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Patel, L

    D. Patel, L. Bronk, F. Guan, C. R. Peeler, S. Brons, I. Dokic, A. Abdollahi, C. Rittmüller, O. Jäkel, D. Grosshans, et al., Optimization of monte carlo particle transport parameters and validation of a novel high throughput experimental setup to measure the biological effects ...

    2017

  27. [35]

    Bronk, F

    L. Bronk, F. Guan, D. Patel, D. Ma, B. Kroger, X. Wang, K. Tran, J. Yiu, C. Stephan, J. Debus, et al., Mapping the relative biological effectiveness of proton, helium and carbon ions with high- throughput techniques, Cancers 12 (12) (2020) 3658

    2020

  28. [36]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. a. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Geant4—a simulation toolkit, Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equ...

    2003

  29. [37]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. A. Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Transactions on nuclear science 53 (1) (2006) 270–278. 16

    2006

  30. [38]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Recent developments in geant4, Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment ...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Incerti, G

    S. Incerti, G. Baldacchino, M. Bernal, R. Capra, C. Champion, Z. Francis, P. Guèye, A. Man- tero, B. Mascialino, P. Moretto, et al., The geant4-dna project, International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing 1 (02) (2010) 157–178

    2010

  32. [40]

    Incerti, A

    S. Incerti, A. Ivanchenko, M. Karamitros, A. Mantero, P. Moretto, H. Tran, B. Mascialino, C. Cham- pion, V. Ivanchenko, M. Bernal, et al., Comparison of geant4 very low energy cross section models with experimental data in water, Medical physics 37 (9) (2010) 4692–4708

    2010

  33. [41]

    Lampe, S

    S.Incerti, I.Kyriakou, M.Bernal, M.Bordage, Z.Francis, S.Guatelli, V.Ivanchenko, M.Karamitros, N. Lampe, S. B. Lee, et al., Geant4-dna example applications for track structure simulations in liquid water: a report from the geant4-dna project, Medical physics 45 (8) (2018) e722–e739

    2018

  34. [42]

    H. N. Tran, J. Archer, G. Baldacchino, J. M. Brown, F. Chappuis, G. A. P. Cirrone, L. Desorgher, N. Dominguez, S. Fattori, S. Guatelli, et al., Review of chemical models and applications in geant4- dna: Report from the esa biorad iii project, Medical Physics 51 (9) (2024) 5873–5889

    2024

  35. [43]

    Ester, H.-P

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al., A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise, in: kdd, Vol. 96, 1996, pp. 226–231

    1996

  36. [44]

    Ester, H.-P

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, Density-connected sets and their application for trend detection in spatial databases., in: KDD, Vol. 97, 1997, pp. 10–15

    1997

  37. [45]

    Francis, C

    Z. Francis, C. Villagrasa, I. Clairand, Simulation of dna damage clustering after proton irradiation using an adapted dbscan algorithm, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 101 (3) (2011) 265–270

    2011

  38. [46]

    R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, C. Zhu, A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained opti- mization, SIAM Journal on scientific computing 16 (5) (1995) 1190–1208

    1995

  39. [47]

    R. B. Hawkins, A microdosimetric-kinetic model for the effect of non-poisson distribution of lethal lesions on the variation of rbe with let, Radiation research 160 (1) (2003) 61–69

    2003

  40. [48]

    F. Guan, L. Bronk, U. Titt, S. H. Lin, D. Mirkovic, M. D. Kerr, X. R. Zhu, J. Dinh, M. Sobieski, C. Stephan, et al., Spatial mapping of the biologic effectiveness of scanned particle beams: towards biologically optimized particle therapy, Scientific reports 5 (1) (2015) 9850

    2015

  41. [49]

    R. D. Stewart, Two-lesion kinetic model of double-strand break rejoining and cell killing, Radiation research 156 (4) (2001) 365–378

    2001

  42. [50]

    Friedrich, U

    T. Friedrich, U. Scholz, T. Elsässer, M. Durante, M. Scholz, Calculation of the biological effects of ion beams based on the microscopic spatial damage distribution pattern, International journal of radiation biology 88 (1-2) (2012) 103–107

    2012

  43. [51]

    Pfuhl, T

    T. Pfuhl, T. Friedrich, M. Scholz, Comprehensive comparison of local effect model iv predictions with the particle irradiation data ensemble, Medical Physics 49 (1) (2022) 714–726

    2022

  44. [52]

    P. J. Deschavanne, B. Fertil, A review of human cell radiosensitivity in vitro, International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 34 (1) (1996) 251–266

    1996

  45. [53]

    J. F. Fowler, Is repair of dna strand break damage from ionizing radiation second-order rather than first-order? a simpler explanation of apparently multiexponential repair, Radiation research 152 (2) (1999) 124–136

    1999

  46. [54]

    Carabe-Fernandez, R

    A. Carabe-Fernandez, R. Dale, H. Paganetti, Repair kinetic considerations in particle beam radio- therapy, The British journal of radiology 84 (1002) (2011) 546–555

    2011

  47. [55]

    T. S. Dexheimer, Dna repair pathways and mechanisms, in: DNA repair of cancer stem cells, Springer, 2012, pp. 19–32. 17

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.