MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085856408 · doi:10.1002/cyto.a.20154

Heterogeneity in DNA damage using the comet assay

2005· review· en· W2085856408 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

VenueCytometry Part A · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComet assayDNA damageDNACometComputational biologyAgaroseBiologyComet tailGeneticsMolecular biologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The single-cell gel electrophoresis or "comet" assay was developed many years ago to analyze DNA damage in individual cells. It is a powerful and versatile technique that relies on microscopic visualization or imaging of DNA after single cells are embedded in agarose, lysed, and electrophoresed. In addition, the basic methodology has been extended to permit the detection of a variety of classes of DNA damage with good sensitivity in virtually any single-cell type. A unique but understudied property of the comet assay is its ability to detect and quantify cellular heterogeneity in response to DNA-damaging agents. This review outlines the considerations in producing and analyzing comet data when heterogeneity in induction of or cellular response to DNA damage is the major consideration. Examples are presented to emphasize the heterogeneity of tumor response to ionizing radiation and cytotoxic drugs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.296 · 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