Validation of Bayesian modeling approach of uncertainty in organ doses using post-mortem measurements.

Maia Avtandilashvili, Martin Šefl, Joey Y Zhou, Sergey Y Tolmachev

Abstract readValidation Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Maia AvtandilashviliUnited States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, 1845 Terminal Drive, Suite 201, Richland, WA, 99354, USA. m.avtandilashvili@wsu.edu.

Martin ŠeflUnited States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, 1845 Terminal Drive, Suite 201, Richland, WA, 99354, USA.

Joey Y ZhouU.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC, 20024, USA.

Sergey Y TolmachevUnited States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, 1845 Terminal Drive, Suite 201, Richland, WA, 99354, USA.

Funding

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Domestic and International Health Studies DE-HS0000073

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biokinetic and dosimetry models recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection do not incorporate dosimetric uncertainty. Recently, Bayesian approach-offering distribution of dose estimates rather than a single point value-has been applied in epidemiological risk modeling. Although the true dose is unknown, Bayesian analysis is assumed to provide information on the true dose through a posterior distribution. This study presents a unique opportunity to validate that assumption. Radiation dose is directly related to the time-dependent radionuclide activity deposited or retained in organs and tissues. Therefore, uncertainties in organ activity predictions derived from biokinetic modeling can serve as proxies for the uncertainties in dose estimation. In this study, uncertainties in model predictions of

Indexed as

PlutoniumAutopsyBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleOccupational ExposureRadiation DosageRadiometryUncertaintyPlutoniumBayesian analysisBiokinetic modelsPlutoniumRadiation epidemiologyUncertaintiesUSTUR

Identifiers

PMID40595973

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-04799-3

PMCPMC12215969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.