REVIEW OF THE ICRP TRITIUM AND 14C INTERNAL DOSIMETRY MODELS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE GENMOD-PC CODE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biokinetic models for tritium and 14C compounds, as described by various ICRP publications, have been incorporated into the Genmod-PC internal dosimetry code. This work reviews the models for tritium and 14C labeled compounds that the ICRP has formulated over several decades. The ICRP dosimetry prescribed for hydrogen and carbon radionuclides is fundamentally different from that recommended for other elements in that it is based on retention functions for whole body activity instead of compartmental biokinetic models. The ICRP recommends dosimetric methods for tritium and 14C compounds, ten of which are coded in Genmod-PC as compartmental models, namely, five tritium compounds, e.g., tritiated water, tritium gas, and five 14C compounds, e.g., carbon dioxide, carbon-labeled methane. The values of the Genmod-PC calculated dose coefficients were compared with the ICRP's values. It is shown how the dose coefficients for intakes of tritium and 14C compounds are affected by different interpretations of the methods recommended by the ICRP for two of the three classes of vapors and gases. Some aspects of the ICRP models, such as the percent oxidized, would benefit from reconsideration so as to produce tritium and 14C biokinetics that are less dependent on the radionuclide.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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.
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".