MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000161732 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e3181de04ec

REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIATION EMERGENCY URINE BIOASSAY TECHNIQUES FOR THE PUBLIC AND FIRST RESPONDERS

2010· article· en· W2000161732 on OpenAlexaff
Chunsheng Li, Slavica Vlahovich, X. Dai, Richard B. Richardson, Joseph N. Daka, Gary H. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayUrineRadiochemistryRadiation doseEnvironmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyToxicologyMedicineMedical physicsBiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following a radiation emergency, the affected public and the first responders may need to be quickly assessed for internal contamination by the radionuclides involved. Urine bioassay is one of the most commonly used methods for assessing radionuclide intake and radiation dose. This paper attempts to derive the sensitivity requirements (from inhalation exposure) for the urine bioassay techniques for the top 10 high-risk radionuclides that might be used in a terrorist attack. The requirements are based on a proposed reference dose to adults of 0.1 Sv (CED, committed effective dose). In addition, requirements related to sample turnaround time and field deployability of the assay techniques are also discussed. A review of currently available assay techniques summarized in this paper reveals that method development for ²⁴¹Am, ²²⁶Ra, ²³⁸Pu, and ⁹⁰Sr urine bioassay is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207