Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24803513›Full record

ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2014

Development and validation of an ex vivo electron paramagnetic resonance fingernail biodosimetric method.

Xiaoming He, Steven G Swarts, Eugene Demidenko, Ann B Flood, Oleg Grinberg, Jiang Gui, Michael Mariani, Stephen D Marsh, Andres E Ruuge, Jason W Sidabras and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Stability of X-band EPR signals from fingernails under vacuum storage.Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Overview of the principles and practice of biodosimetry.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoming HeGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA Department of Chemistry, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Steven G SwartsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA sgswarts@ufl.edu.
Eugene DemidenkoGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Ann B FloodGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Oleg GrinbergGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Jiang GuiGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Michael MarianiGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Stephen D MarshDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Andres E RuugeGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Jason W SidabrasDepartment of Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53213, USA.
Dmitry TipikinGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Dean E WilcoxDepartment of Chemistry, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Harold M SwartzGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Dartmouth College · USUniversity of Florida · USMedical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
TR&D Project 3P41EB001980 · NIBIB · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI KLUG, CANDICE S · 2003 to 2017
$16.3M
Scientific and Administrative Core: Dartmouth Medical SchoolU19AI091173 · NIAID · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN B · 2010 to 2014
$16.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI091173NIAID NIH HHS U19AI091173NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB001980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an imperative need to develop methods that can rapidly and accurately determine individual exposure to radiation for screening (triage) populations and guiding medical treatment in an emergency response to a large-scale radiological/nuclear event. To this end, a number of methods that rely on dose-dependent chemical and/or physical alterations in biomaterials or biological responses are in various stages of development. One such method, ex vivo electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) nail dosimetry using human nail clippings, is a physical biodosimetry technique that takes advantage of a stable radiation-induced signal (RIS) in the keratin matrix of fingernails and toenails. This dosimetry method has the advantages of ubiquitous availability of the dosimetric material, easy and non-invasive sampling, and the potential for immediate and rapid dose assessment. The major challenge for ex vivo EPR nail dosimetry is the overlap of mechanically induced signals and the RIS. The difficulties of analysing the mixed EPR spectra of a clipped irradiated nail were addressed in the work described here. The following key factors lead to successful spectral analysis and dose assessment in ex vivo EPR nail dosimetry: (1) obtaining a thorough understanding of the chemical nature, the decay behaviour, and the microwave power dependence of the EPR signals, as well as the influence of variation in temperature, humidity, water content, and O₂ level; (2) control of the variability among individual samples to achieve consistent shape and kinetics of the EPR spectra; (3) use of correlations between the multiple spectral components; and (4) use of optimised modelling and fitting of the EPR spectra to improve the accuracy and precision of the dose estimates derived from the nail spectra. In the work described here, two large clipped nail datasets were used to test the procedures and the spectral fitting model of the results obtained with it. A 15-donor nail set with 90 nail samples from 15 donors was used to validate the sample handling and spectral analysis methods that have been developed but without the interference of a native background signal. Good consistency has been obtained between the actual RIS and the estimated RIS computed from spectral analysis. In addition to the success in RIS estimation, a linear dose response has also been achieved for all individuals in this study, where the radiation dose ranges from 0 to 6 Gy. A second 16-donor nail set with 96 nail samples was used to test the spectral fitting model where the background signal was included during the fitting of the clipped nail spectra data. Although the dose response for the estimated and actual RIS calculated in both donor nail sets was similar, there was an increased variability in the RIS values that was likely due to the variability in the background signal between donors. Although the current methods of sample handling and spectral analysis show good potential for estimating the RIS in the EPR spectra of nail clippings, there is a remaining degree of variability in the RIS estimate that needs to be addressed; this should be achieved by identifying and accounting for demographic sources of variability in the background nail signal and the composition of the nail matrix.

Indexed as

Biological AssayElectron Spin Resonance SpectroscopyHumansMechanotransduction, CellularNailsRadiation DosageRadiometry

Identifiers

PMID24803513
PMCPMC4095917
OpenAlexW2327283885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.