International journal of radiation biology · 2026
From lab to emergency: semi-automated and rapid biodosimetry for radiological emergencies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vijayalakshmi J, Chaurasia Rajesh Kumar, Nair S R Pooja, Notnani Aarti, Shirsath K B, Priya T Lekha, F D Paul Solomon, Srinivas K Satish, Bhat N N, Khan Arshad, Sapra B K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Accurate biodosimetry is essential in accidental radiation exposure scenarios, particularly when physical dosimetry is unavailable. Chromosomal aberrations, especially dicentrics and micronuclei, serve as key biomarkers, with dicentrics considered the gold standard. Manual scoring is labor-intensive and time-consuming, limiting its utility during large-scale emergencies; therefore, this study aimed to compare manual and semi-automated scoring (DCScore and MNScore) for speed and accuracy in dose estimation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose-response curves (0-5 Gy; 60Co γ-ray) for dicentrics and micronuclei were established using blood samples from three volunteers. Validation was performed using four dose-blinded samples for both cytogenetic endpoints. Manual and semi-automated scoring methods were compared for curve parameters, correlation, estimated dose accuracy, and processing time.
RESULTS: Both scoring modes demonstrated strong correlations (DC: R2 = 0.935; MN: R2 = 0.993), though curve coefficients differed. Estimated doses from blinded samples were largely consistent with reference doses, with semi-automated dicentric analysis showing superior accuracy at most dose points. At 4 Gy, minimal deviations were observed (+2.0% for semi-automated DC and +6.4% for manual MN). Semi-automated DC analysis was more than twice as fast and MN analysis approximately five times faster than manual scoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated scoring significantly improves biodosimetric throughput without compromising accuracy. Its faster analysis and minimal dose estimation errors make it highly suitable for rapid triage during radiological emergencies and mass exposure scenarios.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose-response curves (0-5 Gy; 60Co γ-ray) for dicentrics and micronuclei were established using blood samples from three volunteers. Validation was performed using four dose-blinded samples for both cytogenetic endpoints. Manual and semi-automated scoring methods were compared for curve parameters, correlation, estimated dose accuracy, and processing time.
RESULTS: Both scoring modes demonstrated strong correlations (DC: R2 = 0.935; MN: R2 = 0.993), though curve coefficients differed. Estimated doses from blinded samples were largely consistent with reference doses, with semi-automated dicentric analysis showing superior accuracy at most dose points. At 4 Gy, minimal deviations were observed (+2.0% for semi-automated DC and +6.4% for manual MN). Semi-automated DC analysis was more than twice as fast and MN analysis approximately five times faster than manual scoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated scoring significantly improves biodosimetric throughput without compromising accuracy. Its faster analysis and minimal dose estimation errors make it highly suitable for rapid triage during radiological emergencies and mass exposure scenarios.