MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919136061 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-38046-9

Usefulness of continuous probability distributions of rates for modelling radionuclide biokinetics in humans and animals

2019· article· en· W2919136061 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Shuryak, Ekaterina Dadachova

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclideRadioactive decayExtrapolationRadiochemistryPlutoniumGamma distributionExponential decayExponential functionRadioecologyStatisticsMathematicsChemistryNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling the biokinetics of radionuclide excretion or retention is important in nuclear medicine and following accidental/malicious radioactivity releases. Sums of discrete exponential decay rates are often used, but we hypothesized that continuous probability distributions (CPD) of decay rates can describe the data more parsimoniously and robustly. We tested this hypothesis on diverse human and animal data sets involving various radionuclides (including plutonium, strontium, caesium) measured in the laboratory and in regions contaminated by the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. We used four models on each data set: mono-exponential (ME) with one discrete decay rate, bi-exponential (BE) with two rates, gamma-exponential (GE) with a Gamma distribution of stretched-exponential rates, and power-decay (PD) with a Gamma distribution of power-decay rates. Information-theoretic model selection suggested that radionuclide biokinetics, e.g. for plutonium in humans, are often better described by CPD models like GE and PD, than by discrete rates (ME and BE). Extrapolation of models fitted to data at short times to longer times was frequently more robust for CPD formalisms. We suggest that using a set of several CPD and discrete-rate models, and comparing them by information-theoretic methods, is a promising strategy to enhance the analysis of radionuclide excretion and retention kinetics.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207