MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268188112

Individual Radiosensitivity and Its Relevance to Health Physics

2006· article· en· W2268188112 on OpenAlexaff
Kara Schnarr, Ian S. Dayes, Jinka Sathya, Douglas R. Boreham

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyIonizing radiationAdverse effectMedicineRadiosensitivityRadiation protectionCancerOncologyIntensive care medicineNuclear medicineInternal medicineIrradiation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation protection regulations have been established to reduce exposure of individuals to acceptable safe levels. These limits assume that people have similar responses to ionizing radiation and that there is no variation in individual radiation risk. The purpose of this research was to determine if apoptosis in lymphocytes can be used to assess individual sensitivity to ionizing radiation. Blood samples were taken from 54 males ranging in age from 19–85 years. Apoptosis was measured using modified flow cytometry based Annexin-FITC/7AAD and DiOC6/7AAD assays in different populations of lymphocytes (total mixed lymphocyte population, subset CD4+ or CD8+ lymphocytes) after exposure to in vitro doses of 0, 2, 4 or 8Gy (dose rate 0.1Gy/min). The variation in individual responses to radiation was large. The variation was the largest in the CD4+ lymphocyte subpopulation. Radiation-induced apoptosis decreased with age of donor demonstrating that as people age their lymphocytes may become relatively more resistant to radiation. This research shows that individuals have marked differences in their sensitivity to radiation and protection policies may someday need to be tailored for some individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207