MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gene Expression Responses in Lymphoblastoid Cells after Radiation Exposure

2001· article· en· W2177283080 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Ford, D. Wilkinson, Erika Thorleifson, B. L. Tracy

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGene expressionGeneDNA microarrayGeneticsLymphoblastAlleleGene expression profilingMicroarrayPhenotypeCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual differences in response to radiation are well known, but the molecular basis for these differences is not well understood, and molecular indicators that are useful in assessing individual variation are lacking. Cells from patients developing unexpected radiation responses have occasionally been analyzed for rare genetic anomalies (such as alleles of the ATM gene), but few data exist on the long-term effects of genetic variation on radiation response. We hypothesize that much of the variation in the response to radiation is due to differences in the genes that respond to radiation exposure, and that changes in gene expression may serve as surrogate markers of individual response. As a first step in developing a selection of suitable markers of gene expression, we used cDNA microarrays to identify genes that were altered in expression in lymphoblastoid cells 4 h after exposure to 1 Gy X rays. We found changes in gene expression ranging from a 10-fold repression to a 12-fold induction. Some of the responsive genes have been noted previously in other cell types, whereas others are reported for the first time. Using these data, we are beginning to characterize the range of structural, temporal and functional variations in the responsive genes. The results of this work will assist in developing response markers both for prescreening for sensitive individuals and for risk assessment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207