MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W53547096 · doi:10.1093/milmed/167.8.620

The Quantitative Analysis of Depleted Uranium Isotopes in British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans

2002· article· en· W53547096 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia F. Horan, L. A. Dietz, Asaf Duraković

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniumDepleted uraniumNatural uraniumGulf warIsotope dilutionMass spectrometryRadiochemistryChemistryThermal ionization mass spectrometryIsotopeIsotopes of uraniumUrineThermal ionizationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyIonIonizationElectron ionizationNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work was to determine the concentration and ratio of uranium isotopes in allied forces Gulf War veterans. The 27 patients had their 24-hour urine samples analyzed for 234U, 235U, 236U, and 238U by mass spectrometry. The urine samples were evaporated and separated into isotopic dilution and concentration fraction by the chromatographic technique. The isotopic composition was measured by a thermal ionization mass spectrometer using a secondary electron multiplier detector and ion-counting system. The uranium blank control and SRM960 U isotopic standard were analyzed by the same procedure. Statistical analysis was done by an unpaired t test. The results confirm the presence of depleted uranium (DU) in 14 of 27 samples, with the 238U:235U ratio > 207.15. This is significantly different from natural uranium (p < 0.008) as well as from the DU shrapnel analysis, with 22.22% average value of DU fraction, and warrants further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207