Canadian Cytogenetic Emergency Network (CEN) for biological dosimetry following radiological/nuclear accidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the ability of the cytogenetic emergency network (CEN) of laboratories, currently under development across Canada, to provide rapid biological dosimetry using the dicentric assay for triage assessment, that could be implemented in the event of a large-scale radiation/nuclear emergency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A workshop was held in May 2004 in Toronto, Canada, to introduce the concept of CEN and recruit clinical cytogenetic laboratories at hospitals across the country. Slides were prepared for dicentric assay analysis following in vitro irradiation of blood to a range of gamma-ray doses. A minimum of 50 metaphases per slide were analyzed by 41 people at 22 different laboratories to estimate the exposure level. RESULTS: Dose estimates were calculated based on a dose response curve generated at Health Canada. There were a total of 104 dose estimates and 96 (92.3%) of them fell within the expected range using triage scoring criteria. Half of the laboratories analyzed 50 metaphases in </= 1 hour and the time to score them was proportional to dose. The capacity and scoring expertise of the various participating laboratories were found to be generally acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The dose estimates generated through triage scoring by this network were acceptable for emergency biological dosimetry. When this network is fully operational, it will be the first of its kind in Canada able to respond to radiological/nuclear emergencies by providing triage quality biological dosimetry for a large number of samples. This network represents an alternate expansion of existing international emergency biological dosimetry cytogenetic networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".