4.4 Article

Interlaboratory comparison of the dicentric chromosome assay for radiation biodosimetry in mass casualty events

期刊

RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 169, 期 5, 页码 551-560

出版社

RADIATION RESEARCH SOC
DOI: 10.1667/RR1272.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wilkins, R. C., Romm, H., Kao, T-C., Awa, A. A., Yoshida, M. A., Livingston, G. K., Jenkins, M. S., Oestreicher, U., Pellmar, T. C. and Prasanna, P. G. S. Interlaboratory Comparison of the Dicentric Chromosome Assay for Radiation Biodosimetry in Mass Casualty Events. Radiat. Res. 169, 551-560 (2008). This interlaboratory comparison validates the dicentric chromosome assay for assessing radiation dose in mass casualty accidents and identifies the advantages and limitations of an international biodosimetry network. The assay's validity and accuracy were determined among five laboratories following the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. Blood samples irradiated at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute were shipped to all laboratories, which constructed individual radiation calibration curves and assessed the dose to dose-blinded samples. Each laboratory constructed a dose-effect calibration curve for the yield of dicentrics for Co-60 gamma rays in the 0 to 5-Gy range, using the maximum likelihood linear-quadratic model, Y = c + alpha D + beta D-2. For all laboratories, the estimated coefficients of the fitted curves were within the 99.7% confidence intervals (CIs), but the observed dicentric yields differed. When each laboratory assessed radiation doses to four dose-blinded blood samples by comparing the observed dicentric yield with the laboratory's own calibration curve, the estimates were accurate in all laboratories at all doses. For all laboratories, actual doses were within the 99.75% CI for the assessed dose. Across the dose range, the error in the estimated doses, compared to the physical doses, ranged from 15% underestimation to 15% overestimation. (c) 2008 by Radiation Research Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据