MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323640811 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq288

Is alpha spectrometry reliable for 210Po urine bioassay?

2010· article· en· W2323640811 on OpenAlexaff
C. Li, Baki Sadi, K. L. Davis, Heather Wyatt, J. Cornett, Gary H. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Health Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayUrineMass spectrometryChromatographyRadiochemistryChemistryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typically the bioassay method for (210)Po in urine by alpha spectrometry (AS) involves wet decomposition of the sample, which may cause a loss of (210)Po if volatile species are present. To test this hypothesis, urine samples collected from two rats that were i.v. administered with polonium citrate were measured by both AS and liquid scintillation counting, where urine samples were mixed with a scintillation cocktail without any treatment. A split-plot design method was used to compare results from the two measurement methods, showing no evidence of a difference between the two methods. This suggests that the AS method is reliable for (210)Po urine bioassay.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.383
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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207