MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024585461 · doi:10.1080/09553002.2020.1767820

Environmental and industrial developments in radiation cataractogenesis

2020· review· en· W3024585461 on OpenAlexaff
Łukasz Laskowski, David L. Williams, Colin Seymour, Carmel Mothersill

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCataractsRadiation exposureMedicineToxicologyBiologyNuclear medicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This review discusses recent developments in our understanding of biological and physiological mechanisms underlying radiation cataractogenesis. The areas discussed include effects of low-dose exposures to the lens including potential relevance of non-targeted effects, the development of new personal-protective equipment (PPE) and standards in clinical and nuclear settings motivated by the updated ICRP recommendations to mitigate exposures to the lens of the eye. The review also looks at evidence from the field linking cataracts in birds and mammals to low dose exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that there is evidence that cataractogenesis is not a tissue reaction (deterministic effect) but rather is a low dose effect which shows a saturable dose response relationship similar to that seen for non-targeted effects in general. The review concludes that new research is needed to determine the dose response relationship in environmental studies where field data are contradictory and lab studies confined to rodent models for human exposure studies.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207