MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972608224 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e3181d94ef1

DETERMINING THE RELATIVE TOXICITY AND RBE OF INTERNAL EMITTERS IN ANIMALS

2010· article· en· W1972608224 on OpenAlex
Nicholas D. Priest, David G. Hoel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsToxicityRadionuclideRelative biological effectivenessRelative riskToxicologyEnvironmental scienceInternal radiationStatisticsChemistryNuclear medicineMathematicsBiologyRadiationMedicinePhysicsNuclear physicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is almost impossible to conduct a perfect study of the relative toxicity of the radiations produced by different radionuclides. This is because the results of such studies are commonly confounded by spatial and temporal differences in the distributions of dose produced by the radionuclides employed. In addition, the results of a study designed to overcome these problems (using matched radionuclides incorporated within fused clay particles) revealed additional characteristics of an ideal study. These included the use of sufficient numbers of animals to give the study statistical power; the derivation of all causes of death and of survival for the analysis; the use of relative risk, rather than crude incidence data, to determine toxicity ratios; the cautious use of relative biological effectiveness values derived from fitted curves; and the preferred use of relative toxicity values derived directly from the data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it