MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418091779 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-179-5:179

The Comet Assay: An Overview of Techniques

2003· review· en· W2418091779 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComet assayFluorescence microscopeDNAAgaroseLysisFluorescenceGel electrophoresis of nucleic acidsGel electrophoresisElectrophoresisMicroscopeDNA damageMolecular biologyChemistryAgarose gel electrophoresisElectron microscopeMicroscopyBiophysicsBiologyChromatographyBiochemistryPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The comet assay is a gel electrophoresis method that is used to visualize and measure DNA strand breaks in individual cells using microscopy. In its simplest form, cells are embedded in agarose on a microscope slide, immersed in a lysis solution to remove lipids and proteins, and exposed to a weak electric field to attract broken, negatively-charged DNA towards the anode. After electrophoresis, DNA is stained using a fluorescent dye, and viewed using a fluorescence microscope. Individual images can then be digitized and analyzed for informative properties such as the distance the DNA has migrated and the percent of DNA that has migrated. These features give an indication of the number of strand breaks present in the cell.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.202 · 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