Evidence for a physical component to the radiation-induced bystander effect?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The nature of the transferrable factor which goes from irradiated objects to bystander objects remains undefined. Most agree that a chemical entity is the likely 'factor' although some authors have produced in vitro evidence for the involvement of a physical component or a very potent volatile capable of traveling through air distances. In this paper we test the hypothesis that the communicated signal may be physical at least in part. METHODS: The in vivo fish model was used to allow signal production and response to occur in organisms in vivo without any shared blood or central nervous system (CNS) connections. A reporter assay and calcium flux measurements were used to detect signal production when irradiated fish were separated from unirradiated fish by (a) a plastic container, and (b) a foil-wrapped plastic container. RESULTS: The unirradiated fish showed bystander effects in both cases. The use of foil excludes the possibility of a light signal and although a highly active volatile could travel from one tank to another, the arrangement of sham and irradiated tanks makes it highly unlikely that this could explain our result. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there must be a physical component in the mechanism such as a weak acoustic or electromagnetic signal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".