MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789875600 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000810

Deterministic Effects to the Lens of the Eye Following Ionizing Radiation Exposure

2018· article· en· W2789875600 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

VenueHealth Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsArcadis (Canada)NOSM UniversityLaurentian UniversityBruce Power (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCataractsIonizing radiationMedicineDosimetryRadiological weaponEye lensEquivalent doseRadiation protectionNuclear medicineOccupational exposureEnvironmental healthMedical physicsToxicologyLens (geology)OphthalmologyOpticsRadiologyIrradiationPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ionizing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye is a known cause of cataractogenesis. Historically, it was believed that the acute threshold dose for cataract formation was 5 Sv, and annual dose limits to the lens were set at 150 mSv. Recently, however, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has reduced their threshold dose estimate for deterministic effects to 0.5 Gy and is now recommending an occupational limit of 20 mSv per year on average. A number of organizations have questioned whether this new threshold and dose limit are justified based on the limited reliable data concerning radiation-induced cataracts. This review summarizes all of the published human epidemiological data on ionizing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye in order to evaluate the proposed threshold. Data from a variety of exposure cohorts are reviewed, including atomic bomb survivors, Chernobyl liquidators, medical workers, and radiotherapy patients. Overall, there is not conclusive evidence that the threshold dose for cataract formation should be reduced to 0.5 Gy. Many of the studies reviewed here are challenging to incorporate into an overall risk model due to inconsistencies with dosimetry, sample size, and scoring metrics. Additionally, risk levels in the studied cohorts may not relate to occupational scenarios due to differences in dose rate, radiation quality, age at exposure and latency period. New studies should be designed specifically focused on occupational exposures, with reliable dosimetry and grading methods for lens opacities, to determine an appropriate level for dose threshold and exposure limit.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.314 · 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