IMBA Professional Plus: a flexible approach to internal dosimetry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMBA (Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis) is a suite of software modules that implement the current ICRP biokinetic and dosimetric models for estimation of intakes and doses. The IMBA modules have gone through extensive quality assurance, and are now used for routine formal dose assessment by Approved Dosimetry Services throughout the UK. HPA has continued to develop the IMBA modules. In addition, several projects, sponsored by organisations both in the USA and in Canada, have resulted in the development of customised user-friendly interfaces (IMBA Expert 'editions'). These enable users not only to use the standard ICRP models, but also to change many of the parameter values from ICRP defaults, and to apply sophisticated data handling techniques to internal dose calculations. These include: fitting measurement data with the maximum likelihood method; using multiple chronic and acute intakes; and dealing with different data types, such as urine, faces and whole body simultaneously. These interfaces were improved further as a result of user-feedback, and a general 'off-the-shelf' product, IMBA Professional, was developed and made available in January 2004. A new version, IMBA Professional Plus, was released in April 2005, which is both faster and more powerful than previous software. The aim of this paper is to describe the capabilities of IMBA Professional Plus, and the mathematical methods used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it