MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966305019 · doi:10.1101/718973

Automated Cytogenetic Biodosimetry at Population-Scale

2019· preprint· en· W2966305019 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter K. Rogan, R Lu, Eliseos J. Mucaki, Ben C. Shirley, Y Li, Ruth C. Wilkins, Farrah Norton, Olga Sevriukova, Duy T. Pham, Elizabeth A. Ainsbury, J Moquat, RM Cooke, T Peerlaproulx, Edward Waller, Jhm Knoll

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesHealth CanadaCytodiagnostics (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Atomic Energy AgencyOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsBiodosimetryDicentric chromosomeMetaphasePopulationTriageComputer scienceNuclear medicineIonizing radiationChromosomeBiologyMedicinePhysicsGeneticsIrradiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The dicentric chromosome (DC) assay accurately quantifies exposure to radiation, however manual and semi-automated assignment of DCs has limited its use for a potential large-scale radiation incident. The Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identifier and Dose Estimator Chromosome (ADCI) software automates unattended DC detection and determines radiation exposures, fulfilling IAEA criteria for triage biodosimetry. We present high performance ADCI (ADCI-HT), with the requisite throughput to stratify exposures of populations in large scale radiation events. Methods ADCI-HT streamlines dose estimation by optimal scheduling of DC detection, given that the numbers of samples and metaphase cell images in each sample vary. A supercomputer analyzes these data in parallel, with each processor handling a single image at a time. Processor resources are managed hierarchically to maximize a constant stream of sample and image analysis. Metaphase data from populations of individuals with clinically relevant radiation exposures after simulated large nuclear incidents were analyzed. Sample counts were derived from US Census data. Analysis times and exposures were quantified for 15 different scenarios. Results Processing of metaphase images from 1,744 samples (500 images each) used 16,384 CPUs and was completed in 1hr 11min 23sec, with radiation dose of all samples determined in 32 sec with 1,024 CPUs. Processing of 40,000 samples with varying numbers of metaphase cells, 10 different exposures from 5 different biodosimetry labs met IAEA accuracy criteria (dose estimate differences were < 0.5 Gy; median = 0.07) and was completed in ~25 hours. Population-scale metaphase image datasets within radiation contours of nuclear incidents were defined by exposure levels (either >1 Gy or >2 Gy). The time needed to analyze samples of all individuals receiving exposures from a high yield airborne nuclear device ranged from 0.6-7.4 days, depending on the population density. Conclusion ADCI-HT delivers timely and accurate dose estimates in a simulated population-scale radiation incident.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207