MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055672624 · doi:10.1080/09553000902748757

Computational analysis of the number, area and density of γ-H2AX foci in breast cancer cells exposed to<sup>111</sup>In-DTPA-hEGF or γ-rays using Image-J software

2009· article· en· W2055672624 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhongli Cai, Katherine A. Vallis, Raymond M. Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research UK
KeywordsRadiation oncologyBreast cancerMedical physicsNuclear medicineLibrary scienceMedicineUniversity hospitalCancerFamily medicineComputer scienceRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop a simple method for the quantification of gamma-H2AX focus number, density and size. METHODS: MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cells were treated overnight with (111)In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid human epidermal growth factor ((111)In-DTPA-hEGF, 0-142 kBq/pmol) or exposed to gamma-radiation to induce DNA double strand breaks (DSB). DNA DSB formation was evaluated by detection of phosphorylated histone H2AX on serine 139 (gamma-H2AX) using immunofluorescence. Confocal microscopy was used to capture images of gamma-H2AX foci and cell nuclei. Image-J software with customized macros was used to quantify gamma-H2AX foci. RESULTS: The number of gamma-H2AX foci per nucleus scored using Image-J correlated strongly with the number scored using direct visual confirmation (coefficient of determination, R(2) = 0.950; 60 nuclei scored). The mean density (grayscale values per pixel), area and integrated density (IntDen) of individual foci increased linearly as the specific radioactivity (SR) increased up to 67 kBq/pmol (R(2) values of 0.826, 0.964, 0.978, respectively). The mean number of foci per nucleus, the combined area of gamma-H2AX foci per nucleus and the IntDen per nucleus also increased linearly with SR, giving R(2) values of 0.926, 0.974 and 0.983, respectively. Similar linear relationships were observed with the gamma-ray absorbed dose up to 3.0 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The density, area and IntDen of individual foci, as well as the number of gamma-H2AX foci, total focus area and IntDen per nucleus were successfully quantified using Image-J with customized macros.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations87
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207