Targets, pools, shoulders, and communication – a reflection on the evolution of low-dose radiobiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This reflection aims to look at the evolution of thinking about radiation dose response relationships from the early years of the journal when target theory prevailed to the present day when dose response is seen as a more holistic process involving multiple levels of organization and communication. The review is structured to consider how the old ideas evolved leading to apparently abrupt paradigm shifts. The odd data leading to these conceptual shifts are reviewed. Topics, which are currently still not mainstream are considered with a view to how they may change the future of radiobiology. Finally some personal reflections on the insights gained during the writing of the review are presented. The major conclusion from this study is that ideas concerning survival curves and radiation dose responses evolved and (epi)mutated gradually, driven in a large part by the techniques available for studying radiobiological processes. The illusion of abrupt paradigm shifts is not really borne out by the history when primary references are studied rather than textbooks or reviews. The textbooks necessarily simplify and distil complex data to provide a 'take-home message' while reviews are usually very personal collations selected among the vast amount of scientific literature. Primary references reveal the context of the discussion and the caveats and uncertainties of the authors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".