韩国在统一双中心染色体检测评分标准方面的经验教训。

Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong
{"title":"韩国在统一双中心染色体检测评分标准方面的经验教训。","authors":"Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"709-714"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons on harmonization of scoring criteria for dicentric chromosome assay in South Korea.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"709-714\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"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/10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:有必要与其他生物剂量学实验室联网,以评估大规模放射事故中许多人受到的辐照。韩国生物剂量学网络(K-BioDos)制定了统一的双中心染色体检测评分准则,以在网络内获得同质结果,并对准则的效率进行了调查:K-BioDos 的三个实验室统一了双中心染色体测定的评分指南。将使用统一评分指南的双中心染色体评分结果与各实验室使用自己的方法得出的结果进行比较。在连续三年的三次相互比较后,收集了评分员的反馈意见:结果:K-BioDos 成员在三次比对中表现出了相当的双中心评分能力。但是,K-BioDos 指南的结果与评分员自己的方法相比没有明显改善。根据评分员的说法,与他们自己的方法相比,我们的统一指导原则导致更多的转移因子被拒绝,最终减少了可评分转移因子的数量。此外,由于一些评分员还不熟悉指南,K-BioDos 方案的评分时间有时会更长,不过大多数评分员都表示评分时间有所缩短或保持不变。这些挑战可能会导致对指南的依从性较低。大多数评分员表示愿意使用该指南为其他生物模拟工作选择可扫描的移行体或确定二中心,但有一名评分员因与他们的校准曲线不同而不愿使用该指南:我们发现了在遵循统一准则时可能遇到的阻力,并收到了要求提供更详细方法的请求。我们的研究结果表明,应不断更新统一标准,并为所有评分人员提供教育和培训。这些改变可以让生物模拟网络中的成员在大规模放射事故中成功合作并相互支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Lessons on harmonization of scoring criteria for dicentric chromosome assay in South Korea.

Purpose: Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.

Materials and methods: Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.

Results: K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.

Conclusions: We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
γ-Radiations induced phytoconstituents variability in the grains of cultivated buckwheat species of Himalayan region. IEPA, a novel radiation countermeasure, alleviates acute radiation syndrome in rodents. Isolation and characterization of gamma rays induced mutants for improved agro-morphological performance and harder grain texture in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Advantages of single high-dose radiation therapy compared with conventional fractionated radiation therapy in overcoming radioresistance. Technetium-99m radiolabeling of graphene quantum dots (GQDs) as a new probe for glioblastoma tumor imaging.
×
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