EURADOS intercomparison on emergency radiobioassay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine laboratories participated in an intercomparison exercise organised by the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) for emergency radiobioassay involving four high-risk radionuclides ((239)Pu, (241)Am, (90)Sr and (226)Ra). Diverse methods of analysis were used by the participating laboratories for the in vitro determination of each of the four radionuclides in urine samples. Almost all the methods used are sensitive enough to meet the requirements for emergency radiobioassay derived for this project in reference to the Clinical Decision Guide introduced by the NCRP. Results from most of the methods meet the requirements of ISO 28218 on accuracy in terms of relative bias and relative precision. However, some technical gaps have been identified. For example, some laboratories do not have the ability to assay samples containing (226)Ra, and sample turnaround time would be expected to be much shorter than that reported by many laboratories, as timely results for internal contamination and early decisions on medical intervention are highly desired. Participating laboratories are expected to learn from each other on the methods used to improve the interoperability among these laboratories.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".