MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396051860

Prediction of radiosensitivity by measurement of X-ray induced apoptosis in human blood using the comet assay.

2004· article· en· W2396051860 on OpenAlexaff
N. Kizilian-Martel, Ruth C. Wilkins, J. R. N. McLean, Shawn Malone, G. P. Raaphorst

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosensitivityApoptosisComet assayPeripheral blood mononuclear cellPeripheral bloodPathologyBiologyRadiation therapyPeripheralDNA damageMedicineImmunologyAndrologyCancer researchInternal medicineIn vitroGeneticsDNA
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to determine whether levels of radiation-induced apoptosis in human peripheral leukocytes could be used as a predictor of radiosensitivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peripheral blood was obtained from venous blood and exposed to 0-3 Gy of X-rays. Apoptosis levels were measured at 4, 24, 48 and 72 hours after exposure using the neutral comet assay. Intra-individual apoptotic response was measured using repeated blood samples from four healthy individuals. Inter-individual variation was investigated in whole blood, granulocytes and mononuclear cells from 8 radiotherapy patients (4 demonstrating a radiosensitive response and 4 demonstrating a normal response to radiation exposures). RESULTS: Amongst the four healthy individuals there was both inter- and intra-individual variation of about the same magnitude. However, when comparing the apoptotic response of the radiosensitive and normal patients, consistent trends were observed at all X-ray doses for all of the patients. CONCLUSION: This indicates that apoptosis has some potential as a predictive assay, however, large intra-individual variation exists. More studies are required to investigate the causes of intra-individual variation and how it might be minimized.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207