Establishing a Reference Dose–Response Calibration Curve for Dicentric Chromosome Aberrations to Assess Accidental Radiation Exposure in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cases of nuclear and radiological accidents, public health and emergency response need to assess the magnitude of radiation exposure regardless of whether they arise from disaster, negligence, or deliberate act. Here we report the establishment of a national reference dose–response calibration curve (DRCC) for dicentric chromosome (DC), prerequisite to assess radiation doses received in accidental exposures. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 10 volunteers (aged 20–40 years, median = 29 years) of both sexes (three females and seven males). Blood samples, cytogenetic preparation, and analysis followed the International Atomic Energy Agency EPR-Biodosimetry 2011 report. Irradiations were performed using 320 kVp X-rays. Metafer system was used for automated and assisted (elimination of false-positives and inclusion of true-positives) metaphases findings and DC scoring. DC yields were fit to a linear–quadratic model. Results of the assisted DRCC showed some variations among individuals that were not statistically significant (homogeneity test, P = 0.66). There was no effect of age or sex ( P > 0.05). To obtain representative national DRCC, data of all volunteers were pooled together and analyzed. The fitted parameters of the radiation-induced DC curve were as follows: Y = 0.0020 (±0.0002) + 0.0369 (±0.0019) * D + 0.0689 (±0.0009) * D 2 . The high significance of the fitted coefficients ( z -test, P < 0.0001), along with the close to 1.0 p- value of the Poisson-based goodness of fit (χ 2 = 3.51, degrees of freedom = 7, P = 0.83), indicated excellent fitting with no trend toward lack of fit. The curve was in the middle range of DRCCs published in other populations. The automated DRCC over and under estimated DCs at low (<1 Gy) and high (>2 Gy) doses, respectively, with a significant lack of goodness of fit ( P < 0.0001). In conclusion, we have established the reference DRCC for DCs induced by 320 kVp X-rays. There was no effect of age or sex in this cohort of 10 young adults. Although the calibration curve obtained by the automated (unsupervised) scoring misrepresented dicentric yields at low and high doses, it can potentially be useful for triage mode to segregate between false-positive and near 2-Gy exposures from seriously irradiated individuals who require hospitalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".