Application of a semi-automated dicentric scoring system in triage and monitoring occupational radiation exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is considered the gold standard for radiation biodosimetry, but it is limited by its long dicentric scoring time and need for skilled scorers. The automation of scoring dicentrics has been considered a strategy to overcome the constraints of DCA. However, the studies on automated scoring methods are limited compared to those on conventional manual DCA. Our study aims to assess the performance of a semi-automated scoring method for DCA usingex vivoandin vivoirradiated samples. Dose estimations of 39 blind samples irradiatedex vivoand 35 industrial radiographers occupationally exposedin vivowere estimated using the manual and semi-automated scoring methods and subsequently compared. The semi-automated scoring method, which removed the false positives of automated scoring using the dicentric chromosome (DC) scoring algorithm, had an accuracy of 94.9% in theex vivoirradiated samples. It also had more than 90% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity to distinguish binary dose categories reflecting clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological significance. These data were comparable to those of manual DCA. Moreover, Cohen's kappa statistic and McNemar's test showed a substantial agreement between the two methods for categorizingin vivosamples into never and ever radiation exposure. There was also a significant correlation between the two methods. Despite of comparable results with two methods, lower sensitivity of semi-automated scoring method could be limited to assess various radiation exposures. Taken together, our findings show the semi-automated scoring method can provide accurate dose estimation rapidly, and can be useful as an alternative to manual DCA for biodosimetry in large-scale accidents or cases to monitor radiation exposure of radiation workers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".