2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.05.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An initial limited biodosimetry inter-comparison exercise: FOI and DRDC Ottawa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Authors have stated that changes in the laboratory culture protocol and handling of samples can affect metaphase chromosomes. 24,25 Because of this factor, each cytogenetic laboratory is advised to construct their dose-response curves and coefficients. 22 As of this time, the data of this report is still preliminary.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Authors have stated that changes in the laboratory culture protocol and handling of samples can affect metaphase chromosomes. 24,25 Because of this factor, each cytogenetic laboratory is advised to construct their dose-response curves and coefficients. 22 As of this time, the data of this report is still preliminary.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an alternative experiment, irradiation (0.7 Gy/min), culture and slide preparation were carried out in lab II and then sent to lab I. This was done to reduce the variation in sample processing, as it has been demonstrated that slight differences in processing and handling of samples in a lab can impact the quality of metaphase chromosomes (Stricklin et al 2007). Various types of CA were recorded by manual microscopic scoring by two independent scorers.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been reported that the qualitative nature of selection of metaphases for DC scoring could result in differences in scoring between laboratories. Alternatively, within a lab, an evaluator becomes accustomed to his or her own quality of metaphase spreads resulting in reliable analysis (Stricklin et al 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%