黑料网

In the aftermath of an event in which a large number of people may be concerned that they have been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation, such as nuclear terrorism, it is urgently necessary to provide direction to managers and first responders [1]. Methods that are able to provide dose estimates immediately in the field without the need to send samples to a distant location or to wait for many hours or days to obtain the information are essential in light of the potential for a large number of people to be involved and the potential disruption that such incidents could cause. Time to emesis has been a prominent component in guidance documents for initial responses to such an event because it has been suggested that this correlates with dose. The end point is easy to see, and getting the data doesn't require any special equipment or knowledge [2]. Naturally, the most important question is how accurate and trustworthy this end point is for directing efficient triage. For instance, what are the expected false positive and false negative rates for discrimination based on a given threshold dose, and how uncertain is dose estimation for an individual who has vomited during the exposure? Although data showing the relationship between radiation dose and time to emesis have been published previously, there has not been a thorough analysis of this method's precision, including the calculation of the standard error of the dose prediction, specificity, and sensitivity [3]. The standard error of the dose prediction, the confidence interval, and the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve are all used in this paper to provide a quantitative evaluation of this technique.

Materials and Method

Dosage to emesis in relation to time

A confidence interval representing the precision of these estimates ought to also be provided. Standard regression analysis can be used to extract this information from the data. For the following statistical and practical reasons, we reverse the relationship between time to emesis and radiation dose rather than following the causal relationship between exposure and emesis and considering time to emesis as a function of absorbed dose [4]. First, the main assumption of a standard regression analysis is that the independent variable, or explanatory variable, does not have any measurement errors while the dependent variable, y, does. However, while the radiation dose received typically has a significant measurement error, time to emesis can be accurately recorded. As a result, applying the least-squares estimation theory to the dose as a function of time to emesis is more accurate. Even though there are techniques for parameter estimation with measurement errors in x, they are typically significantly more complicated and necessitate understanding the distribution [5]. It is common knowledge that the systematic negative bias in the least squares regression slope occurs when x is measured with error. Second, when radiation dose is expressed as a function of time to emesis, it is simple to make predictions. On the other hand, the technique for opposite relapse could be applied, yet this would include significant inconveniences to utilize measurable induction. Thirdly, we take into account the log-scale relationship between dose and time to emesis, as have other authors. There are three benefits to this transformation: First, the log transformation gets rid of the data's skewness and heteroscedasticity, bringing the distribution closer to a Gaussian one, which is a common regression analysis assumption. Second, the transformation of the nonlinear power function into a linear function simplifies analysis and enhances precision. Thirdly, the log transformation implies that for larger doses of radiation, measurement errors are relative to one another, which seems appropriate in our circumstance. Since the log transformation implies a relative error, the percentage of radiation dose is used to represent our estimated uncertainty [6].

Discussion

Our analysis demonstrates that the dose estimate based on time to emesis is inaccurate, with a 95% confidence interval and a standard error of approximately 200 percent. D is the dose estimate. The normal Gaussian distribution serves as the foundation for our accuracy evaluation [7]. The log transformation eliminates this undesirable aspect of the data and makes the normal assumption much more appropriate, despite the fact that the original data appear to not support this assumption due to skewness and heteroscedasticity. When considering the use of the method for triage, or screening, of populations that may be irradiated, computation of sensitivity and specificity is an essential component of dose estimation. For instance, the time-to-emesis discriminant value should be less than 2 h if one wishes to identify the population that received 2 Gy or more. This criterion comes at the cost of excluding 14% of the population that received less than 2 Gy but will have vomited within 2 h. If sensitivity is set to 86%, then 4 h to emesis should be used, but this would result in a false positive rate of 46%. For the two cases, the likely number of bogus positive location might overwhelm the clinical consideration framework, successfully delivering the strategy unreasonable [8]. These analyses are based on the assumption that the data are complete and applicable to an event involving a large number of people, such as the detonation of an improvised nuclear device with immediate radiation or brief heavy fallout exposures. However, when using these data for dose reconstruction based on time to emesis, several additional potential sources of uncertainty should be taken into consideration. The uncertainties calculated in the previous sections are increased by all of these additional considerations [9]. Even though our analysis uses the only extensive data set that is available, the poor quality of the data may be the cause of the large standard error for dose prediction, which is a significant limitation. To make our assessment more accurate, we need more information about the time to emesis. Since there is no measurement error in the data sets regarding the onset of vomiting, the calculations of uncertainties in the estimates of dose from time to vomiting assume that the observed uncertainties reflect the biological variability in time to emesis. For the exposures at Chernobyl, which make up the majority of the data points, these assumptions are without a doubt invalid [10]. It is common knowledge that the doses at Chernobyl are based on a combination of measurements and reconstruction, and that these have a significant amount of uncertainty. Also, the doses were given at different dose rates over different time periods, which changed the biological effects of the radiation and probably made people more likely to vomit.

1. Flynn DF, Goans RE (2006. Surg Clin N Am 86(3):601–636.

, ,

2. Anno GH, Baum SJ, Withers HR, Young RW (1989) . Health Phys 56(6):821–838.

, ,

3. Parker DD, Parker JC (2007) . Health Phys 93(30):701–704.

, ,

4. Ma GQ, Hall WJ (1993) . Med Decis Making 13(3):191–197.

, ,

5. Waselenko JK, MacVittie TJ, Blakely WF, Pesik N, Wiley AL, et al. (2004) . Ann Intern Med 140(12):1037–1051.

, ,

6. Alexander GA, Swartz HM, Amundson SA, Blakely WF, Buddemeier B, et al. (2007) . Radiat Meas 42(7):972–996.

, ,

7. Demidenko E, Williams BB, Sucheta A, Dong R, Swartz HM (2007) . Radiat Meas 42(6):1089–1093.

, ,

8. Swartz HM, Burke G, Coey M, Demidenko E, Dong R, et al. (2007) . Radiat Meas 42(7):1075–1084.

, ,

9. Simon SL, Bailiff I, Bouville A, Fattibene P, Kleinerman RA (2007) . Radiat. Meas 42(13):948–971.

,

10. Goans RE, Waselenko JK (2005) . Health Phys 89(5):505–512.

, ,