MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ESTIMATING RADIATION DOSE FROM TIME TO EMESIS AND LYMPHOCYTE DEPLETION

2007· article· en· W2038583103 on OpenAlex

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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphocyteRadiation doseRadiationNuclear medicineTable (database)MedicineStatisticsImmunologyPhysicsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphocyte depletion kinetics and time to emesis have previously been shown to correlate with radiation dose. However, the method for estimating dose from lymphocyte counts was cumbersome, and a tabulation of estimated dose vs. time to emesis published by the International Atomic Energy Agency did not agree well with a regression of data from many (>100) radiation accident cases. The time-to-emesis data have been reanalyzed, and the new regression corroborates the previously published table. Also, dose estimation from post-exposure lymphocyte counts has been simplified and no longer requires serial calculations. Instead, dose can be estimated by a simple table lookup, given the ratio of two lymphocyte counts and the time between blood samples.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.302 · 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