Influence of statistical methods on lower limits of dose estimation in biological dosimetry.

David Endesfelder, Martin Bucher, Elizabeth A Ainsbury, Ursula Oestreicher
{"title":"Influence of statistical methods on lower limits of dose estimation in biological dosimetry.","authors":"David Endesfelder, Martin Bucher, Elizabeth A Ainsbury, Ursula Oestreicher","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2440870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In cases of radiological or nuclear events, biological dosimetry enables decisions whether an individual was exposed to ionizing radiation and the estimation of the dose. Several statistical methods are used to assess uncertainties. The stringency of the applied method has an impact on the lowest dose that can be detected. To obtain reliable and comparable results, it is crucial to harmonize the applied statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The decision threshold and detection limit of the statistical methods were derived for variable cell numbers. The coverage of the 95% confidence intervals as well as the false-positive and false-negative rates of the methods were compared based on simulations. The evaluated methods included a graphical method, the propagation of errors and a Bayesian method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The minimum resolvable doses, the doses at the detection limit and the coverage were relatively variable between the compared methods. The Bayesian method showed the best coverage, lowest resolvable doses and had false-positive rates close to 5%. The graphical method with the combination of two 83% confidence intervals also showed promising results. The other methods were either too conservative or underestimated the uncertainties for some doses or cell numbers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The assessment of the lower dose limits is a central part of biological dosimetry and the applied statistical methods have a strong influence on the interpretation of the results. Simulations enable comparisons between methods and provide important information for the harmonization and standardization of the uncertainty assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"107-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2440870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In cases of radiological or nuclear events, biological dosimetry enables decisions whether an individual was exposed to ionizing radiation and the estimation of the dose. Several statistical methods are used to assess uncertainties. The stringency of the applied method has an impact on the lowest dose that can be detected. To obtain reliable and comparable results, it is crucial to harmonize the applied statistical methods.

Materials and methods: The decision threshold and detection limit of the statistical methods were derived for variable cell numbers. The coverage of the 95% confidence intervals as well as the false-positive and false-negative rates of the methods were compared based on simulations. The evaluated methods included a graphical method, the propagation of errors and a Bayesian method.

Results: The minimum resolvable doses, the doses at the detection limit and the coverage were relatively variable between the compared methods. The Bayesian method showed the best coverage, lowest resolvable doses and had false-positive rates close to 5%. The graphical method with the combination of two 83% confidence intervals also showed promising results. The other methods were either too conservative or underestimated the uncertainties for some doses or cell numbers.

Conclusions: The assessment of the lower dose limits is a central part of biological dosimetry and the applied statistical methods have a strong influence on the interpretation of the results. Simulations enable comparisons between methods and provide important information for the harmonization and standardization of the uncertainty assessment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
统计方法对生物剂量学剂量估计下限的影响。
目的:在发生放射性或核事件时,生物剂量测定有助于确定个人是否受到电离辐射照射并估算剂量。有几种统计方法可用于评估不确定性。应用方法的严格程度会影响可检测到的最低剂量。为了获得可靠且可比较的结果,统一所使用的统计方法至关重要:材料和方法:针对不同的细胞数,得出了统计方法的判定阈值和检测限。通过模拟比较了 95% 置信区间的覆盖率以及各种方法的假阳性率和假阴性率。评估的方法包括图形法、误差传播法和贝叶斯法:结果:不同方法的最小可分辨剂量、检测极限剂量和覆盖率相对不同。贝叶斯方法的覆盖率最高,可解析剂量最低,假阳性率接近 5%。结合两个 83% 置信区间的图形方法也显示出良好的结果。其他方法要么过于保守,要么低估了某些剂量或细胞数的不确定性:剂量下限的评估是生物剂量学的核心部分,所采用的统计方法对结果的解释有很大影响。模拟可以对各种方法进行比较,并为不确定性评估的统一和标准化提供重要信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PCR-based detection technique and gamma irradiation strategies for managing Ralstonia solanacearum-induced brown rot of potato. In vitro regeneration and optimization of physical and chemical mutagenesis protocol in tuberose (Agave amica (Medik.) Thiede & Govaerts) cv. 'Arka Vaibhav'. Association of -607C/A (rs1946518) and -137G/C (rs187238) polymorphisms and immune response in radiation-exposed workers. Intravitreal melatonin for the prevention of radiation retinopathy: a step beyond bevacizumab. FASN inhibition shows the potential for enhancing radiotherapy outcomes by targeting glycolysis, AKT, and ERK pathways in breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1