Microdosimetry of kidney cells exposed to <sup>243</sup> Am and X-ray irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro experiments with rat kidney cells exposed to 243 Am in cell culture medium show a decreasing cell viability with increasing americium concentration. Both the chemical cytotoxicity of americium and the dose caused by ionizing radiation have to be considered as possible causes. To determine the dose rate, a model which was reduced to the dosimetric relevant circumstances was set up. Since the size of the cells is in the micrometer range α -radiation makes the biggest contribution to the dose rate. Using the characteristic behaviour of α -particles the dose rate can be calculated from fluence and stopping power. Biological aspects like uptake of Americium into the cells as well as inaccuracies arising from inhomogeneity and dynamic behaviour in biological systems were taken into account. The dose rate was considered pointwise in the cell center and averaged over the whole cell. Calculations show that dose rates up to the Gy/h range were achieved at the highest americium concentrations of 8⋅10 -4 M. For an experimental comparison of the effect in dependence of the dose reference samples of untreated kidney cells were exposed to analog doses in an X-ray field. Taking relative biological effectiveness into account the cell viability curves depending on the dose show good agreement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".