MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205906226 · doi:10.3390/cells11030356

Advances in the Current Understanding of How Low-Dose Radiation Affects the Cell Cycle

2022· review· en· W4205906226 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedCANDU Owners Group
KeywordsCell cycleBiologyIonizing radiationCell biologyDNA damageDNA repairCell cycle checkpointCellFunction (biology)Computational biologyCancer researchDNAGeneticsIrradiationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cells exposed to ionizing radiation undergo a series of complex responses, including DNA damage, reproductive cell death, and altered proliferation states, which are all linked to cell cycle dynamics. For many years, a great deal of research has been conducted on cell cycle checkpoints and their regulators in mammalian cells in response to high-dose exposures to ionizing radiation. However, it is unclear how low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) regulates the cell cycle progression. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that LDIR may have profound effects on cellular functions. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of how LDIR (of up to 200 mGy) regulates the cell cycle and cell-cycle-associated proteins in various cellular settings. In light of current findings, we also illustrate the conceptual function and possible dichotomous role of p21Waf1, a transcriptional target of p53, in response to LDIR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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