Eye-lens dose rate conversion factors due to hot particles and surface contaminations on the cornea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2012, the International Commission on Radiological Protection issued new recommendations, in publication 118, regarding the dose limits to the eye-lens. New analyses of historical exposure data had indicated that radiation-induced cataracts may appear at lower doses than previously assumed. This spurred largescale efforts in a variety of fields including dosimetry, radiation effects simulations, and the review of national regulatory limits. On the simulation side, much work led to the publication of dose rate conversion factors (DRCFs), to calculate the dose to the radiosensitive part of the eye-lens, and to the whole eye-lens as functions of the incident fluence of electron, photon, positron, and neutron radiation. The standard, ISO-15382 (2015 Radiological Protection—Procedures for Monitoring the Dose to the Lens of the Eye, the Skin and the Extremities ), from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), stated that the direct contact of a hot radioactive particle on the eye-lens represents a special contamination condition that must be considered. The aim of this work was to produce tabulated data of eye-lens dose rates, per activity (MBq), for a variety of radionuclides. In this work, the dose to the eye-lens from contamination directly in contact with the cornea, expressed in terms of DRCFs for eye-lens, in units of Gy h −1 MBq −1 , are presented for 102 radionuclides of interest. These radionuclides were selected as they had been considered by the International Atomic Energy Agency of importance for skin dose. The method consisted of two steps. The first was the determination of the DRCFs for mono-energetic electrons and photons for a hot particle in contact with the eye-lens, followed by the folding of these quantities with the emissions of the radionuclides of interest. Contributions from spontaneous fission neutrons were considered separately. Exposure geometries for spherical hot particles of different dimensions, materials and locations on the cornea were considered. In addition, partial surface coverage of the cornea, consistent with an accidental exposure to a contaminated liquid, was also modelled. Resulting radionuclide DRCFs were verified, for a few specific geometries and radionuclides with dedicated Monte Carlo simulations. The final data are presented in several tables included in this paper.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".