MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correlation of FBX Dosimeter and Micronucleus Assay in Radiation Dosimetry of Gamma Chambers

2009· article· en· W2094130721 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Manjoor Ali, Prabha Tiwari, Amit Kumar, Kaushala Prasad Mishra, Badri N. Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Pathology Toxicology and Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsDosimetryDosimeterRadiochemistryNuclear medicineRadiationDose rateMicronucleus testChemistryAbsorbed doseToxicityPhysicsMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study is to determine the dose distribution in gamma irradiation chambers by chemical dosimetry and to establish its correlation with biological dosimetry. The dose-distribution studies of these two gamma chambers show that compared to the center point of the chambers, the dose rate was 17%-22% higher at the circumference. Moreover, the dose rate was 12%-18% lower at the bottom and top positions compared to the center point. It was interesting to observe that the dose rate determined by chemical dosimetry was well correlated with the number of micro-nucleus (MN) formations at different positions of the chamber. Our results suggest that the formation of the single MN/cell was better correlated with the dose rate than the double MN/cell, suggesting that the number of single MN/cells could be better biomarkers for determining the dose rate. These results provide a correlation between chemical and biological dosimetry, which may have relevance in the development of better bioassay techniques for radiation exposure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Pathology Toxicology and OncologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207