MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804648029 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000876

Old Data—New Concepts: Integrating “Indirect Effects” Into Radiation Protection

2018· article· en· W2804648029 on OpenAlexaff
Carmel Mothersill, Colin Seymour

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBystander effectGenome instabilityTransgenerational epigeneticsPhenotypeRadiation exposureBiologyToxicologyMedicineCancer researchImmunologyGeneticsDNA damageNuclear medicineGeneEpigenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To address the following key question, what are the consequences of nontargeted and delayed effects for linear nonthreshold models of radiation risk? This paper considers low-dose "indirect" or nontargeted effects and how they might impact radiation protection, particularly at the level of the environment. Nontargeted effects refer to effects in cells, tissues, or organisms that were not targeted by irradiation and that did not receive direct energy deposition. They include genomic instability and lethal mutations in progeny of irradiated cells and bystander effects in neighboring cells, tissues, or organisms. Low-dose hypersensitivity and adaptive responses are sometimes included under the nontargeted effects umbrella, but these are not considered in this paper. Some concepts emerging in the nontargeted effects field that could be important include historic dose. This suggests that the initial exposure to radiation initiates the instability phenotype which is passed to progeny leading to a transgenerational radiation-response phenotype, which suggests that the system response rather than the individual response is critical in determining outcome. CONCLUSION: Nontargeted effects need to be considered, and modeling, experimental, and epidemiological approaches could all be used to determine the impact of nontargeted effects on the currently used linear nonthreshold model in radiation protection.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.014
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207