MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333210524 · doi:10.1088/1478-3975/11/4/045003

Modeling the repair of DNA strand breaks caused by γ-radiation in a minichromosome

2014· article· en· W2333210524 on OpenAlexaff
Krzysztof Łakomiec, Sławomir Kumala, Robert E. W. Hancock, Joanna Rzeszowska‐Wolny, Krzysztof Fujarewicz

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinichromosomeDNADNA damageDNA repairIonizing radiationBiologyCell biologyRaji cellBiophysicsIrradiationGeneticsCellPhysicsChromatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the studies described here was the development of a mathematical model which would fit experimental data for the repair of single and double strand breaks induced in DNA in living cells by exposure to ionizing radiation, and which would allow to better understand the processes of DNA repair. DNA breaks are believed to play the major role in radiation-induced lethality and formation of chromosome deletions, and are therefore crucial to the response of cells to radiotherapy. In an initial model which we reported on the basis of data for the repair of Epstein-Barr minichromosomes in irradiated Raji cells, we assumed that DNA breaks are induced only at the moment of irradiation and are later removed by repair systems. This work gives a development of that mathematical model which fits the experimental results more precisely and suggests strongly that DNA breaks are generated not only by direct irradiation but also later, probably by systems engaged in repair of oxidative damage.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical BiologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207