Estimating partial-body ionizing radiation exposure by automated cytogenetic biodosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Inhomogeneous exposures to ionizing radiation can be detected and quantified with the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) of metaphase cells. Complete automation of interpretation of the DCA for whole-body irradiation has significantly improved throughput without compromising accuracy, however, low levels of residual false positive dicentric chromosomes (DCs) have confounded its application for partial-body exposure determination.Materials and methods We describe a method of estimating and correcting for false positive DCs in digitally processed images of metaphase cells. Nearly all DCs detected in unirradiated calibration samples are introduced by digital image processing. DC frequencies of irradiated calibration samples and those exposed to unknown radiation levels are corrected subtracting this false positive fraction from each. In partial-body exposures, the fraction of cells exposed, and radiation dose can be quantified after applying this modification of the contaminated Poisson method.Results Dose estimates of three partially irradiated samples diverged 0.2–2.5 Gy from physical doses and irradiated cell fractions deviated by 2.3%–15.8% from the known levels. Synthetic partial-body samples comprised of unirradiated and 3 Gy samples from 4 laboratories were correctly discriminated as inhomogeneous by multiple criteria. Root mean squared errors of these dose estimates ranged from 0.52 to 1.14 Gy2 and from 8.1 to 33.3%2 for the fraction of cells irradiated.Conclusions Automated DCA can differentiate whole- from partial-body radiation exposures and provides timely quantification of estimated whole-body equivalent dose.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".