MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088076737 · doi:10.2144/000112441

Approach for Assessing Total Cellular DNA Damage

2007· article· en· W2088076737 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc D. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Research Foundation
KeywordsDNA damageGenotoxicityComputational biologyPopulationComet assayBiologyComputer scienceDNAGeneticsMedicineToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capability to relate phenotypic effects to damage associated with either the mitochondrial or nuclear genome is especially useful under a number of circumstances. Potential hazardous exposures can be evaluated for genotoxicity and related to diseases, particularly cancer. The correlation of DNA damage with adverse health effects is also important in evaluating the safety of various chemical agents and prospective therapeutics. Many techniques exist that afford the ability to identify and measure cellular DNA damage upon exposure to a suspected genotoxic agent; however, quite often these techniques are limited either by the advanced instrumentation and skill needed to perform the analyses or the amount of time needed and limited information obtained regarding the types of DNA damage generated. Recent advances in cellular-based methods have resulted in the timely and straightforward collection of reliable and specific data regarding levels of damage and the identity of the damage products. Antibodies developed for DNA damage lesions allow for the direct measurement of those lesions within a population of exposed cells, while the automation of the single-cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay and the use of scoring software have led to rapid and standardized data collection. This essay describes the usefulness of these approaches, while providing a brief experimental overview of the techniques.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207