Factors Influencing Effects of Low-dose Radiation Exposure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: It is now well accepted that the mechanisms induced by low-dose exposures to ionizing radiation (LDR) are different from those occurring after high-dose exposures. However, the downstream effects of these mechanisms are unclear as are the quantitative relationships between exposure, effect, harm, and risk. In this paper, we will discuss the mechanisms known to be important with an overall emphasis on how so-called "non-targeted effects" (NTE) communicate and coordinate responses to LDR. Targeted deposition of ionizing radiation energy in cells causing DNA damage is still regarded as the dominant trigger leading to all downstream events whether targeted or non-targeted. We regard this as an over-simplification dating back to formal target theory. It ignores that last 100 y of biological research into stress responses and signaling mechanisms in organisms exposed to toxic substances, including ionizing radiation. We will provide evidence for situations where energy deposition in cellular targets alone cannot be plausible as a mechanism for LDR effects. An example is where the energy deposition takes place in an organism not receiving the radiation dose. We will also discuss how effects after LDR depend more on dose rate and radiation quality rather than actual dose, which appears rather irrelevant. Finally, we will use recent evidence from studies of cataract and melanoma induction to suggest that after LDR, post-translational effects, such as protein misfolding or defects in energy metabolism or mitochondrial function, may dominate the etiology and progression of the disease. A focus on such novel pathways may open the way to successful prophylaxis and development of new biomarkers for better risk assessment after low dose 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it