Construction of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) translocation dose-response calibration curve with multiple donor data sets using R, based on ISO 20046:2019 recommendations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Dose-response curve (DRC) generation is an important aspect in cytogenetic biodosimetry for accurate dose estimation for individuals suspected of prior irradiation. DRC construction with dicentric chromosomes after acute radiation is well-established following the publication of the IAEA EPR-Biodosimetry 2011 and ISO 19238:2014. However, the short half-life of dicentrics might not be suitable for retrospective dose estimation in radiation medical workers, radiation accident clean-up workers and the general public living in areas with higher than average amount of radiation. There is an urgent need for a chromosome translocation-based DRC, which is constructed based on translocation identification with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Despite several attempts to generate such a DRC in the past 40 years, no internationally standardized protocol has been developed until 2019, resulting in possible statistical uncertainties between DRCs previously generated.Materials and methods: Using the recently published ISO 20049:2019, a DRC from five healthy donors (four males: 23, 35, 44, 55 years old, one female: 33 years old) was generated with age-adjusted translocations scored per cell equivalent (age-adjusted Tr/CE), using a modified R-script previously published in EPR-Biodosimetry, for 60Co gamma-ray doses of 0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 1 Gy. The translocation data set used, based on probes used for chromosomes number 1, 2, and 4, was previously published by Abe et al. in 2018.Results: The results output from R include the DRC coefficients (C, α, β), their p-values, the goodness-of-fit Pearson’s chi square value and its corresponding p-value, and the DRC with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The equation of the DRC obtained was 0.0005 (±0.0001) +0.0178 (±0.0037) D + 0.0901 (±0.0054) D2. DRC generated with averaged Tr/CE had a wider 95% CI than DRC generated with pooled Tr/CE, resulting in a 1.3–1.5 times increase in estimated dose range. No outliers between α coefficients from previously published modified DRCs and our DRC were detected with robust Z-score.Conclusions: ISO 20046:2019 should be referenced for future FISH translocation-based DRC generation to ensure statistical reliability of dose estimation. Important considerations for FISH translocation-based DRC up to 1 Gy include scoring more than 2000 CE per dose, the use of multiple donors, age-adjustment of observed translocations, the use of a minimum of 5 dose points including 0 Gy, scoring of total simple translocations in only stable cells and the decision of using pooled or averaged age-adjusted Tr/CE.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it