MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074946397 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e3181ab3cb6

THE RABIT: A RAPID AUTOMATED BIODOSIMETRY TOOL FOR RADIOLOGICAL TRIAGE

2010· article· en· W2074946397 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Garty, Alessio Salerno, Helen C. Turner, Jian Zhang, Oleksandra V. Lyulko, Antonella Bertucci, Yanping Xu, Hongliang Wang, Nabil Simaan, Gerhard Randers-Pehrson, Y. Lawrence Yao, Sally A. Amundson, David J. Brenner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsBiodosimetryComputer scienceTriageThroughputTestbedAutomationLaboratory automationReliability engineeringReal-time computingSimulationMedicinePhysicsEngineeringOperating systemIonizing radiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the recognized need for high throughput biodosimetry methods for use after large-scale radiological events, a logical approach is complete automation of standard biodosimetric assays that are currently performed manually. The authors describe progress to date on the RABIT (Rapid Automated BIodosimetry Tool), designed to score micronuclei or gamma-H2AX fluorescence in lymphocytes derived from a single drop of blood from a fingerstick. The RABIT system is designed to be completely automated, from the input of the capillary blood sample into the machine to the output of a dose estimate. Improvements in throughput are achieved through use of a single drop of blood, optimization of the biological protocols for in situ analysis in multi-well plates, implementation of robotic-plate and liquid handling, and new developments in high-speed imaging. Automating well-established bioassays represents a promising approach to high-throughput radiation biodosimetry, both because high throughputs can be achieved, but also because the time to deployment is potentially much shorter than for a new biological assay. Here the authors describe the development of each of the individual modules of the RABIT system and show preliminary data from key modules. System integration is ongoing, followed by calibration and validation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations118
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207