RADIATION DOSE ESTIMATION BY COMPLETELY AUTOMATED INTERPRETATION OF THE DICENTRIC CHROMOSOME ASSAY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accuracy of the automated dicentric chromosome (DC) assay relies on metaphase image selection. This study validates a software framework to find the best image selection models that mitigate inter-sample variability. Evaluation methods to determine model quality include the Poisson goodness-of-fit of DC distributions for each sample, residuals after calibration curve fitting and leave-one-out dose estimation errors. The process iteratively searches a pool of selection model candidates by modifying statistical and filter cut-offs to rank the best candidates according to their respective evaluation scores. Evaluation scores minimize the sum of squared errors relative to the actual radiation dose of the calibration samples. For one laboratory, the minimum score for the curve fit residual method was 0.0475 Gy2, compared to 1.1975 Gy2 without image selection. Application of optimal selection models using samples of unknown exposure produced estimated doses within 0.5 Gy of physical dose. Model optimization standardizes image selection among samples and provides relief from manual DC scoring, improving accuracy and consistency of dose estimation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".