arxiv: 2604.15478 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph · cond-mat.dis-nn· nlin.PS· physics.bio-ph· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: unknown

Fractal geometry-governed oxygen diffusion: Tumors vs. Normal Tissues

Neda Valizadeh , Robabeh Rahimi , Ramin Abolfath

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph cond-mat.dis-nnnlin.PSphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords fractal diffusionoxygen transporttumor heterogeneityanomalous diffusionUHDR irradiationsubdiffusive dynamicsHausdorff dimensionFLASH radiotherapy

0 comments

The pith

Fractal tissue structure suppresses long-range oxygen diffusion and creates persistent localized profiles.

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

The paper develops a diffusion-reaction model for oxygen on fractal substrates to capture how tissue architecture affects molecular transport. Tissue geometry enters through the Hausdorff dimension D while scale-dependent slowing and memory enter through the fractional parameter θ. The resulting equations show that higher values of these parameters shorten effective diffusion lengths, produce subdiffusive spreading, and leave non-Gaussian concentration profiles even after the system reaches steady state. The authors present this separation between efficient and isolated regimes as a geometric mechanism that can distinguish tumor from normal tissue behavior under ultra-high dose rate irradiation.

Core claim

On fractal substrates the oxygen concentration obeys a generalized diffusion-reaction equation whose solutions exhibit systematic suppression of long-range transport once the Hausdorff dimension D or the fractional parameter θ is increased. When θ exceeds zero, fractional dynamics override the connectivity gains from larger D, yielding reduced diffusion lengths and steady-state profiles that remain non-Gaussian and spatially localized. This produces two distinct transport regimes: one allowing rapid inter-track overlap and homogenization, the other leaving isolated, long-lived reactive domains.

What carries the argument

Generalized diffusion-reaction equation on a fractal substrate whose Hausdorff dimension D sets geometric connectivity and whose fractional parameter θ introduces memory and scale-dependent transport inefficiency.

If this is right

Increasing D or θ shortens effective oxygen diffusion lengths and reduces spatial accessibility.
Fractional dynamics (θ > 0) dominate geometric effects and maintain non-Gaussian profiles at steady state.
Transport separates into a regime of rapid homogenization versus one of isolated long-lived reactive domains.
These differences arise even when physical conditions such as dose rate are held fixed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Measuring D and θ in actual tumor and normal tissue samples could yield testable predictions of their relative sensitivity to UHDR.
The same framework could be applied to the diffusion of other species such as nutrients or radiosensitizers in heterogeneous media.
If the localization effect holds, dose-rate selection might be tuned according to the fractal properties of the target tissue.

Load-bearing premise

Real tissues can be represented as uniform fractal substrates whose single parameters D and θ are sufficient to govern oxygen diffusion and to explain differential irradiation responses without additional cellular or chemical details.

What would settle it

Observation of Gaussian oxygen profiles and classical diffusion lengths in highly heterogeneous tumor samples under controlled UHDR conditions would contradict the predicted localization and subdiffusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15478 by Neda Valizadeh, Ramin Abolfath, Robabeh Rahimi.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Radial probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Radial probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Steady-state radial probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Steady-state radial probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Three-dimensional visualization of the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

{\bf Purpose}: To develop a geometry-governed diffusion framework that explains differential tissue response under FLASH ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation by explicitly accounting for structural heterogeneity and anomalous transport in biological tissues. {\bf Methods}: We formulate a generalized diffusion--reaction model on fractal substrates to describe molecular transport in heterogeneous media. Tissue architecture is characterized by a fractal (Hausdorff) dimension \(D\), while scale-dependent transport inefficiency and memory effects are captured by a fractional parameter \(\theta\). Analytical solutions for radially symmetric geometries are derived and compared with classical normal (Euclidean) diffusion and a Gaussian reference model under identical physical conditions. Transport behavior is quantified through transient probability distributions and steady-state spatial profiles. {\bf Results}: The model reveals systematic suppression of long-range transport and enhanced localization as tissue structural complexity increases. Increasing \(\theta\) leads to subdiffusive dynamics, reduced effective diffusion lengths, and persistent non-Gaussian concentration profiles, even in the steady state. While increasing \(D\) alone enhances spatial accessibility, fractional dynamics dominate transport behavior when \(\theta>0\), counteracting geometric connectivity. These effects produce a separation between regimes characterized by efficient inter-track overlap and rapid homogenization, and regimes marked by isolated, long-lived reactive domains.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This modeling paper derives analytical solutions for oxygen diffusion on fractal substrates with D and θ but supplies no measured tissue parameters or links to UHDR radiochemical outcomes.

read the letter

The paper's main point is that a generalized diffusion-reaction model on fractal substrates can produce suppressed long-range oxygen transport and persistent localized domains when tissue complexity is high. This is positioned as a way to understand why normal tissues and tumors might respond differently to FLASH ultra-high dose rate irradiation. The new element is the explicit inclusion of both the Hausdorff dimension D for geometry and the fractional parameter θ for anomalous transport in the same framework, then solving it analytically for radial symmetry. They show that θ drives subdiffusion and non-Gaussian steady states more strongly than D does, leading to a separation between homogenized transport regimes and isolated reactive ones. The comparisons to classical diffusion are straightforward and illustrate the effects clearly. This approach is useful for exploring how structural heterogeneity alone might influence molecular distributions without adding extra biological mechanisms. The derivations appear consistent within the model assumptions. Where it falls short is in the application to the actual problem. The results come from parameter sweeps without assigning specific D or θ values drawn from tumor or normal tissue data. There is also no quantitative mapping of the oxygen profiles to the radiochemical processes or inter-track overlap conditions that define FLASH effects. The differential response between tissue types is asserted but not demonstrated with numbers that would distinguish tumors from normal tissue. A reader who works on mathematical models of diffusion in disordered media will see value in the analytical solutions and the regime analysis. For someone in radiation oncology looking for a predictive tool or explanation backed by measurements, the paper does not deliver enough. The work shows clear thinking in setting up and solving the equations, so it merits a serious referee. Reviewers could help by pushing for literature-based parameter choices and perhaps some comparison to known oxygen diffusion data in tissues. I recommend sending this to peer review rather than desk rejecting it. The core math is there and could be strengthened with more grounding.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a generalized diffusion-reaction model on fractal substrates characterized by Hausdorff dimension D and fractional parameter θ to describe oxygen transport in heterogeneous biological tissues. It derives analytical solutions for radially symmetric geometries, compares them to classical Euclidean diffusion, and shows that increasing D and θ suppress long-range transport, induce subdiffusive dynamics, reduce effective diffusion lengths, and produce persistent non-Gaussian steady-state concentration profiles. These effects are proposed to create regime separation that explains differential responses to UHDR/FLASH irradiation between tumors and normal tissues.

Significance. If the central claims hold after validation, the work provides an analytical framework linking tissue microstructure to anomalous oxygen diffusion, offering a potential geometric mechanism for the FLASH effect without invoking additional biological details. The derivation of closed-form solutions for the fractional model on fractals is a clear strength, enabling reproducible parametric exploration. However, the absence of tissue-specific parameter values or direct mapping to radiochemical outcomes limits immediate applicability to radiotherapy.

major comments (3)

[Results] Results: The parametric sweeps demonstrate trends in transport suppression with increasing D and θ, but no measured Hausdorff dimensions or fractional orders are assigned to tumor versus normal tissue classes, nor are the resulting concentration fields mapped onto UHDR-specific quantities such as oxygen depletion rates or inter-track overlap thresholds. This leaves the explanatory link to differential tissue responses unanchored.
[Methods] Methods: The model treats D and θ as free parameters introduced to represent heterogeneity and memory effects, yet provides no procedure for calibrating them from tissue imaging data or other measurements, nor demonstrates that the reported regime separation survives when D and θ are constrained to biologically plausible ranges for each tissue type.
[Results] Abstract/Results: The claim of 'persistent non-Gaussian concentration profiles, even in the steady state' is shown for θ>0, but the manuscript supplies no quantitative comparison (e.g., Kullback-Leibler divergence or moment analysis) against experimental oxygen distributions in tumors or normal tissues under matched conditions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that 'fractional dynamics dominate transport behavior when θ>0, counteracting geometric connectivity,' but the corresponding figure or equation showing the crossover is not referenced, making it difficult to locate the supporting derivation.
[Methods] Notation for the generalized diffusion equation should explicitly state the limiting case θ=0 recovers the standard diffusion equation with the given D, to avoid ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with fractional operators.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our theoretical framework. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the analytical derivations and the potential significance for understanding the FLASH effect. Below we respond point by point to the major comments, emphasizing that the manuscript presents a general model rather than a fully parameterized application. We will make targeted revisions to improve clarity on parameter usage and limitations while preserving the core theoretical contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results: The parametric sweeps demonstrate trends in transport suppression with increasing D and θ, but no measured Hausdorff dimensions or fractional orders are assigned to tumor versus normal tissue classes, nor are the resulting concentration fields mapped onto UHDR-specific quantities such as oxygen depletion rates or inter-track overlap thresholds. This leaves the explanatory link to differential tissue responses unanchored.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not assign specific measured values of D or θ to tumor versus normal tissues, nor does it perform explicit numerical mapping to UHDR quantities such as depletion rates. The work is a theoretical development demonstrating how the parameters control transport regimes and produce separation between efficient homogenization and isolated reactive domains. In revision we will expand the Discussion to include a qualitative mapping: higher D and θ in tumors are expected to reduce effective diffusion lengths, thereby limiting inter-track overlap under UHDR conditions relative to normal tissue. We will also outline how steady-state profiles can be used to estimate local oxygen depletion timescales, while noting that quantitative radiochemical integration lies outside the present scope. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods: The model treats D and θ as free parameters introduced to represent heterogeneity and memory effects, yet provides no procedure for calibrating them from tissue imaging data or other measurements, nor demonstrates that the reported regime separation survives when D and θ are constrained to biologically plausible ranges for each tissue type.

Authors: D and θ are introduced as physically motivated parameters, with D obtained from fractal analysis of tissue architecture and θ capturing memory effects in transport. We will add a dedicated subsection to Methods describing calibration routes: estimation of D via box-counting or Minkowski-Bouligand methods applied to histological or micro-CT images, and estimation of θ by fitting the fractional model to time-dependent diffusion data (e.g., FRAP or oxygen electrode transients). We will also add a supplementary figure or table showing that the reported regime separation between tumors and normal tissues remains intact when D and θ are restricted to literature-reported plausible intervals for each tissue class. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Abstract/Results: The claim of 'persistent non-Gaussian concentration profiles, even in the steady state' is shown for θ>0, but the manuscript supplies no quantitative comparison (e.g., Kullback-Leibler divergence or moment analysis) against experimental oxygen distributions in tumors or normal tissues under matched conditions.

Authors: The non-Gaussian character follows analytically from the fractional time derivative for any θ > 0, producing power-law tails in the steady-state radial profiles. We will revise the Results section to include explicit moment analysis (variance, skewness, and kurtosis) of the steady-state solutions and will compare these qualitatively with published oxygen electrode and imaging data showing greater heterogeneity in tumors. A full quantitative statistical comparison (e.g., KL divergence) against matched experimental datasets is not feasible without access to raw data and will be stated as a limitation and avenue for future validation. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Assigning concrete measured values of D and θ to tumor versus normal tissue classes or performing direct quantitative statistical comparisons to experimental oxygen distributions, both of which require new experimental data collection and analysis outside the theoretical scope of the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows directly from generalized equations.

full rationale

The paper introduces a generalized diffusion-reaction model on fractal substrates with parameters D (Hausdorff dimension) and θ (fractional order) to capture heterogeneity and anomalous transport. It derives analytical solutions for radially symmetric geometries and conducts parametric studies showing subdiffusive effects and non-Gaussian profiles as functions of D and θ. These outcomes are direct mathematical consequences of the model equations rather than reductions by construction, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No tissue-specific fitting or uniqueness theorems from prior self-work are invoked to force the central results; the framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on two free parameters D and θ introduced to adapt diffusion to tissue heterogeneity, plus domain assumptions that tissues are fractal and that fractional dynamics apply; no invented physical entities are added.

free parameters (2)

D
Hausdorff fractal dimension characterizing tissue structural complexity and connectivity
θ
Fractional parameter capturing scale-dependent transport inefficiency and memory effects

axioms (3)

domain assumption Biological tissues can be modeled as fractal substrates with a Hausdorff dimension D
Invoked in the methods to describe heterogeneous media architecture
domain assumption Scale-dependent transport follows fractional dynamics governed by parameter θ
Introduced to capture subdiffusion and memory effects in the generalized model
standard math Radially symmetric geometries permit derivation of analytical solutions for probability distributions and profiles
Used to obtain transient and steady-state results under identical physical conditions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5543 in / 1546 out tokens · 76038 ms · 2026-05-10T09:24:22.513296+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

developed a uniform oxygen diffusion-reaction model that accounts for the oxygen depletion as a function of dose rate, arguing transient diffusion bottlenecks may ac- centuate tissue-type–specific dose-rate responses. In con- trast, we incorporated geometry-governed localization ef- fects that may bridge microscopic structural organization with macroscopi...
[2]

Generalized Fractal Diffusion Model The generalized diffusion equation on a fractal sub- strate is given by Eq. (3) of the main text, ∂P(r, t) ∂t = 1 rD−1 ∂ ∂r k rD−1−θ ∂P(r, t) ∂r −µP(r, t), (A1) whereDis the fractal (Hausdorff) dimension,θis the fractional transport exponent,kis the effective transport coefficient, andµis an effective decay or reaction ...
[3]

Normal (Euclidean) Diffusion The normal diffusion model is recovered in the Eu- clidean limitD= 2 andθ= 0. Equation (A1) reduces to ∂P(r, t) ∂t =k 1 r ∂ ∂r r ∂P ∂r −µP(r, t).(A11) In Laplace space, the Green’s function takes the form G(r, r′;s) =I 0(qmin{r, r ′})K 0(qmax{r, r ′}),(A12) withq= p (s+µ)/k. The solution procedure, boundary condition, and Steh...
[4]

Gaussian Reference Solution For comparison, we also consider the analytical Gaus- sian solution describing free diffusion in two dimensions, PG(r, t) = 1 4πkt exp − r2 4kt ,(A14) which is normalized analytically. This solution rep- resents the limiting case of homogeneous, memoryless transport and provides a reference for assessing devia- tions induced by...
[5]

How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Di- mension

Mandelbrot, B.B. (1967). “How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Di- mension.”Science,156(3775), 636–638

1967
[6]

(1988).Fractals

Feder, J. (1988).Fractals. Springer New York, NY

1988
[7]

(1991).Fractals and Disordered Systems

Bunde, A., Havlin, S. (1991).Fractals and Disordered Systems. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg

1991
[8]

The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach

Metzler, R., Klafter, J. (2000). “The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach.” Phys. Rep.339, 1–77

2000
[9]

Continuous limit of discrete sys- tems with long-range interaction

Tarasov, V.E. (2006). “Continuous limit of discrete sys- tems with long-range interaction.”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 14895

2006
[10]

Chaos, fractional kinetics, and anomalous transport

Zaslavsky, G.M. (2002). “Chaos, fractional kinetics, and anomalous transport.”Phys. Rep.371, 461–580

2002
[11]

Architecture of the human lung. Use of quantitative methods establishes fundamental relations between size and number of lung structures

Weibel, E.R., Gomez, D.M. (1962). “Architecture of the human lung. Use of quantitative methods establishes fundamental relations between size and number of lung structures.”Science137(3530), 577–85

1962
[12]

Fractals and cancer

Baish, J.W., Jain, R.K. (2000). “Fractals and cancer.” Cancer Res.60(14), 3683–8

2000
[13]

Scale-invariant behavior and vascular network formation in normal and tumor tissue

Gazit, Y., Berk, DA., Leunig, M., Baxter, LT., Jain, RK. (1995). “Scale-invariant behavior and vascular network formation in normal and tumor tissue.”Physical Review Letters75(12), 2428–2431

1995
[14]

Fractal characteristics of tumor vascular architecture during tumor growth and re- gression

Gazit, Y., Baish, JW., Safabakhsh, N., Leunig, M., Bax- ter, LT., Jain, RK., (1997). “Fractal characteristics of tumor vascular architecture during tumor growth and re- gression.”Microcirculation4(4), 395–402

1997
[15]

The dynamic evo- lution of the power exponent in a universal growth model of tumors

Guiot, C., Delsanto, P., Carpinteri, A., Pugno, N., Mansury, Y., Deisboeck, T.S. (2006). “The dynamic evo- lution of the power exponent in a universal growth model of tumors.”J. Theor. Biol.240(3), 459–63

2006
[16]

Es- timating oxygen distribution from vasculature in three- dimensional tumour tissue

Grimes, D.R., Kannan, P., Warren, D., et al. (2014). “Es- timating oxygen distribution from vasculature in three- dimensional tumour tissue.”J. R. Soc. Interface13, 20160070

2014
[17]

Oxygena- tion Status of Malignant Tumors vs. Normal Tissues: Critical Evaluation and Updated Data Source Based on Direct Measurements with pO2 Microsensors

Vaupel, P., Flood, A.B., Swartz, H.M. (2021). “Oxygena- tion Status of Malignant Tumors vs. Normal Tissues: Critical Evaluation and Updated Data Source Based on Direct Measurements with pO2 Microsensors.”Appl. Magn. Reson.52, 1451–1479

2021
[18]

Tumor hypoxia: causative factors, compensatory mechanisms, and cellu- lar response

Vaupel, P., Harrison, L. (2004). “Tumor hypoxia: causative factors, compensatory mechanisms, and cellu- lar response.”Oncologist9, 4–9

2004
[19]

Mathematical modelling of oxygen supply and oxygenation in tumor tissues: prognostic, therapeutic, and experimental impli- cations

Degner FL., Sutherland RM. (1988). “Mathematical modelling of oxygen supply and oxygenation in tumor tissues: prognostic, therapeutic, and experimental impli- cations.”Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.15(2), 391–7

1988
[20]

Oxygen distribution in tumors: a qualitative analysis and model- ing study providing a novel Monte Carlo approach

Lagerl¨ of JH, Kindblom J, Bernhardt P. (2014). “Oxygen distribution in tumors: a qualitative analysis and model- ing study providing a novel Monte Carlo approach.”Med Phys.41(9), 094101

2014
[21]

Time-dependent behavior of interstitial fluid pressure in solid tumors: implications for drug de- livery

Netti, P.A., Baxter, L.T., Boucher, Y., Skalak, R., Jain, R.K. (1995). “Time-dependent behavior of interstitial fluid pressure in solid tumors: implications for drug de- livery.”Cancer Res.55, 5451–5458

1995
[22]

Combining two strategies to improve perfusion and drug delivery in solid tumors

Stylianopoulos, T., Jain, R.K. (2013). “Combining two strategies to improve perfusion and drug delivery in solid tumors.”Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.110(46), 18632–7

2013
[23]

Computational Multi-Scale Model- ing of Drug Delivery into an Anti-Angiogenic Therapy- Treated Tumor

Mohammadi M, Sefidgar M, Aghanajafi C, Kohandel M, Soltani M. (2023). “Computational Multi-Scale Model- ing of Drug Delivery into an Anti-Angiogenic Therapy- Treated Tumor.”Cancers (Basel).15(22), 5464

2023
[24]

Computational modeling of drug delivery to solid tu- mors: A pilot study based on a real image

Kashkooli, F.M., Soltani, M., Momeni, M.M. (2021). “Computational modeling of drug delivery to solid tu- mors: A pilot study based on a real image.”Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology.62, 102347

2021
[25]

Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy

Jain, R.K. (2005). “Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy.”Science 307(5706), 58–62

2005
[26]

Transport of drugs from blood vessels to tumour tissue

Dewhirst, M.W., Secomb, T.W. (2017). “Transport of drugs from blood vessels to tumour tissue.”Nat. Rev. Cancer17(12), 738–750

2017
[27]

Selective visualization of tumor cell membranes and tu- mors with a viscosity-sensitive plasma membrane probe

Li, Q., Zhu, W., Gong, S., Jiang, S., Feng, G. (2023). 13 “Selective visualization of tumor cell membranes and tu- mors with a viscosity-sensitive plasma membrane probe.” Anal. Chem.95, 7254–7261

2023
[28]

Ex- panding the scope of reporting nanoparticles: Sensing of lipid phase transitions and nanoviscosities in lipid mem- branes

Ober, K., Volz-Rakebrand, P., Stellmacher, J., Brod- wolf, R., Licha, K., Haag, R., Alexiev, U. (2019). “Ex- panding the scope of reporting nanoparticles: Sensing of lipid phase transitions and nanoviscosities in lipid mem- branes.”Langmuir35, 11422–11434

2019
[29]

FLASH: New intersection of physics, chemistry, biol- ogy, and cancer medicine

Vozenin, M.-C., Loo, B. W., Tantawi, S., Maxim, P. G., Spitz, D. R., Bailat, C., Limoli, C. L., (2024). “FLASH: New intersection of physics, chemistry, biol- ogy, and cancer medicine”, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 035002. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.96.035002

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.96.035002 2024
[30]

Recom- bination of lipid free radicals in a Flash: Modeling the differential expression of oxylipins dependency on tem- perature, dose rate and cell status

Favaudon, V., Hotoiu, L., Labarbe, R., (2025). “Recom- bination of lipid free radicals in a Flash: Modeling the differential expression of oxylipins dependency on tem- perature, dose rate and cell status.”FRPT Conference, Prague, 2025

2025
[31]

Expanding the scope of reporting nanoparticles: Sensing of lipid phase transitions and nanoviscosities in lipid membranes

Szlasa, W., Zendran, I., Zalesi´ nska, A., Tarek, M., Kul- backa, J. (2020). “Expanding the scope of reporting nanoparticles: Sensing of lipid phase transitions and nanoviscosities in lipid membranes.”Lipid composition of the cancer cell membrane52, 321–342

2020
[32]

To- wards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy

Vozenin, M.C., Bourhis, J., Durante, M. (2022). “To- wards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy.”Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.19(12), 791–803

2022
[33]

A computational model of radiolytic oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation and its effect on the oxygen enhancement ratio

Pratx, G., Kapp, D.S. (2019). “A computational model of radiolytic oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation and its effect on the oxygen enhancement ratio.”Physics in Medicine & Biology64, 185005

2019
[34]

Long-term neurocogni- tive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species

Montay-Gruel, P. et al. (2019). “Long-term neurocogni- tive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species.”Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 116(22), 10943–10951

2019
[35]

A physicochemical model of reaction kinetics supports peroxyl radical recombination as the main determinant of the FLASH effect

Labarbe, R. Hotoiu, L., Barbier, J., Favauson, V. (2020). “A physicochemical model of reaction kinetics supports peroxyl radical recombination as the main determinant of the FLASH effect.”Radiother. Oncol.153, 303–310

2020
[36]

Quantification of oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation in vitro and in vivo

Cao, X., Zhang, R., Esipova, T.V., Allu, S.R., Ashraf, R., Rahman, M. (2021). “Quantification of oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation in vitro and in vivo.”Inter- national Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 111(1), 240–248

2021
[37]

May oxygen depletion explain the FLASH effect? A chemical track structure analysis

Boscolo, D., Scifoni, E., Durante, M., Kr¨ amer, M., Fuss, M.C. (2021). “May oxygen depletion explain the FLASH effect? A chemical track structure analysis.”Radiother- apy and Oncology162, 68–75

2021
[38]

Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect

Favaudon, V., Labarbe, R., Limoli, C.L. (2022). “Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect.”Med- ical Physics49(3), 2068–2081

2022
[39]

Radical Production with Pulsed Beams: Understand- ing the Biochemical Basis of FLASH Radiotherapy and Future Applications

Espinosa-Rodr´ ıguez, A., Gonzalo, R., Carabe, A. (2022). “Radical Production with Pulsed Beams: Understand- ing the Biochemical Basis of FLASH Radiotherapy and Future Applications.”Cancers14(21), 5227

2022
[40]

A stochastic reac- tion–diffusion modeling investigation of FLASH ultra- high dose rate response in different tissues

Abolfath, R., Baikalov, A., Fraile, A., Bartzsch, S., Sch¨ uler, E., Mohan, R. (2023). “A stochastic reac- tion–diffusion modeling investigation of FLASH ultra- high dose rate response in different tissues.”Front. Phys. 11, 1060910

2023
[41]

A microscopic oxygen transport model for ultra-high dose rate radio- therapy in vivo: The impact of physiological conditions on FLASH effect

Guo L., Medin PM., Wang KK. (2024). “A microscopic oxygen transport model for ultra-high dose rate radio- therapy in vivo: The impact of physiological conditions on FLASH effect.”Med. Phys.51(11), 8623–8637

2024
[42]

Stehfest, H. (1970). Algorithm 368: Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms [D5].Communications of the ACM, 13(1), 47–49

1970