Retrospective Biodosimetry of an Occupational Overexposure—Case Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, Health Canada was approached by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to conduct biodosimetry for a possible overexposure 4 y prior to assessment. Dose estimates were determined by means of two cytogenetic assays, the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and translocations as measured by the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). As dicentrics are considered to be unstable over time, the results of the DCA were adjusted to account for the time elapsed between the suspected exposure and sampling. The frequency of damage was then compared to Health Canada's calibration curves, respectively, to calculate dose. In addition, the translocation data were corrected for age-related increases in background. With a half-life of 36 months for dicentric chromosomes taken into consideration, the dose estimates from both assays were in agreement. Due to the uncertainty in the half-life of dicentrics, the FISH assay is considered to be more reliable as a technique for retrospective biodosimetry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it