A comparison of six statistical distributions for analysis of chromosome aberration data for radiation biodosimetry

The Poisson distribution is the most widely recognised and commonly used distribution for cytogenetic radiation biodosimetry. However, it is recognised that, due to the complexity of radiation exposure cases, other distributions may be more properly applied. Here, the Poisson, gamma, negative binomi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiation protection dosimetry 2013-07, Vol.155 (3), p.253-267
Main Authors: Ainsbury, Elizabeth A, Vinnikov, Volodymyr A, Maznyk, Nataliya A, Lloyd, David C, Rothkamm, Kai
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Bayes Theorem
Chromosome Aberrations - radiation effects
Chromosomes, Human - radiation effects
Cytogenetics
Environmental Exposure
Humans
Radiation Dosage
Radiation Monitoring
Radiometry
Software
Statistical Distributions
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Poisson distribution is the most widely recognised and commonly used distribution for cytogenetic radiation biodosimetry. However, it is recognised that, due to the complexity of radiation exposure cases, other distributions may be more properly applied. Here, the Poisson, gamma, negative binomial, beta, Neyman type-A and Hermite distributions are compared in terms of their applicability to 'real-life' radiation exposure situations. The identification of the most appropriate statistical model in each particular exposure situation more correctly characterises data. The results show that for acute, homogeneous (whole-body) exposures, the Poisson distribution can still give a good fit to the data. For localised partial-body exposures, the Neyman type-A model was found to be the most robust. Overall, no single distribution was found to be universally appropriate. A distribution-specific method of analysis of cytogenetic data is therefore recommended. Such an approach may lead potentially to more accurate biological dose estimates.
ISSN:0144-8420
1742-3406
DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncs335