High-Accuracy Relative Biological Effectiveness Values Following Low-Dose Thermal Neutron Exposures Support Bimodal Quality Factor Response with Neutron Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical evaluations indicate the radiation weighting factor for thermal neutrons differs from the current International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended value of 2.5, which has radiation protection implications for high-energy radiotherapy, inside spacecraft, on the lunar or Martian surface, and in nuclear reactor workplaces. We examined the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of DNA damage generated by thermal neutrons compared to gamma radiation. Whole blood was irradiated by 64 meV thermal neutrons from the National Research Universal reactor. DNA damage and erroneous DNA double-strand break repair was evaluated by dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay with low doses ranging 6–85 mGy. Linear dose responses were observed. Significant DNA aberration clustering was found indicative of high ionizing density radiation. When the dose contribution of both the 14N(n,p)14C and 1H(n,γ)2H capture reactions were considered, the DCA and the CBMN assays generated similar maximum RBE values of 11.3 ± 1.6 and 9.0 ± 1.1, respectively. Consequently, thermal neutron RBE is approximately four times higher than the current ICRP radiation weighting factor value of 2.5. This lends support to bimodal peaks in the quality factor for RBE neutron energy response, underlining the importance of radiological protection against thermal neutron exposures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".