Cancer and Low Dose Responses in 'Vivo': Implications for Radiation Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Linear No Threshold (LNT) hypothesis states that ionizing radiation risk is directly proportional to dose, without a threshold. This hypothesis, along with a number of additional derived or auxiliary concepts such as radiation and tissue type weighting factors, and dose rate reduction factors, are used to calculate radiation risk estimates for humans, and are therefore fundamental for radiation protection practices. This system is based mainly on epidemiological data of cancer risk in human populations exposed to relatively high doses (above 100 mSv), with the results linearly extrapolated back to the low doses typical of current exposures. The system therefore uses dose as a surrogate for risk. There is now a large body of information indicating that, at low doses, the LNT hypothesis, along with most of the derived and auxiliary concepts, is incorrect. The use of dose as a predictor of risk needs to be re-examined and the use of dose limits, as a means of limiting risk needs to be re-evaluated. This re-evaluation could lead to large changes in radiation protection practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".