Literature DB >> 27356061

Evaluating the Special Needs of The Military for Radiation Biodosimetry for Tactical Warfare Against Deployed Troops: Comparing Military to Civilian Needs for Biodosimetry Methods.

Ann Barry Flood1, Arif N Ali, Holly K Boyle, Gaixin Du, Victoria A Satinsky, Steven G Swarts, Benjamin B Williams, Eugene Demidenko, Wilson Schreiber, Harold M Swartz.   

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to delineate characteristics of biodosimetry most suitable for assessing individuals who have potentially been exposed to significant radiation from a nuclear device explosion when the primary population targeted by the explosion and needing rapid assessment for triage is civilians vs. deployed military personnel. The authors first carry out a systematic analysis of the requirements for biodosimetry to meet the military's needs to assess deployed troops in a warfare situation, which include accomplishing the military mission. Then the military's special capabilities to respond and carry out biodosimetry for deployed troops in warfare are compared and contrasted systematically, in contrast to those available to respond and conduct biodosimetry for civilians who have been targeted by terrorists, for example. Then the effectiveness of different biodosimetry methods to address military vs. civilian needs and capabilities in these scenarios was compared and, using five representative types of biodosimetry with sufficient published data to be useful for the simulations, the number of individuals are estimated who could be assessed by military vs. civilian responders within the timeframe needed for triage decisions. Analyses based on these scenarios indicate that, in comparison to responses for a civilian population, a wartime military response for deployed troops has both more complex requirements for and greater capabilities to use different types of biodosimetry to evaluate radiation exposure in a very short timeframe after the exposure occurs. Greater complexity for the deployed military is based on factors such as a greater likelihood of partial or whole body exposure, conditions that include exposure to neutrons, and a greater likelihood of combined injury. These simulations showed, for both the military and civilian response, that a very fast rate of initiating the processing (24,000 d) is needed to have at least some methods capable of completing the assessment of 50,000 people within a 2- or 6-d timeframe following exposure. This in turn suggests a very high capacity (i.e., laboratories, devices, supplies and expertise) would be necessary to achieve these rates. These simulations also demonstrated the practical importance of the military's superior capacity to minimize time to transport samples to offsite facilities and use the results to carry out triage quickly. Assuming sufficient resources and the fastest daily rate to initiate processing victims, the military scenario revealed that two biodosimetry methods could achieve the necessary throughput to triage 50,000 victims in 2 d (i.e., the timeframe needed for injured victims), and all five achieved the targeted throughput within 6 d. In contrast, simulations based on the civilian scenario revealed that no method could process 50,000 people in 2 d and only two could succeed within 6 d.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27356061      PMCID: PMC4930006          DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000538

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  54 in total

1.  Rapid radiation dose assessment for radiological public health emergencies: roles of NIAID and BARDA.

Authors:  Marcy B Grace; Brian R Moyer; Joanna Prasher; Kenneth D Cliffer; Narayani Ramakrishnan; Joseph Kaminski; C Norman Coleman; Ronald G Manning; Bert W Maidment; Richard Hatchett
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

2.  Advances in a framework to compare bio-dosimetry methods for triage in large-scale radiation events.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Holly K Boyle; Gaixin Du; Eugene Demidenko; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Automating dicentric chromosome detection from cytogenetic biodosimetry data.

Authors:  Peter K Rogan; Yanxin Li; Asanka Wickramasinghe; Akila Subasinghe; Natasha Caminsky; Wahab Khan; Jagath Samarabandu; Ruth Wilkins; Farrah Flegal; Joan H Knoll
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  In vivo EPR tooth dosimetry for triage after a radiation event involving large populations.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Ildar Salikhov; Kyo Kobayashi; Ruhong Dong; Kevin Rychert; Gaixin Du; Wilson Schreiber; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Sensitivity of whole human teeth to fast neutrons and gamma-rays estimated by L-band EPR spectroscopy.

Authors:  Marieta Zdravkova; Jean-Marc Denis; Bernard Gallez; Rene Debuyst
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.898

6.  Adapting the γ-H2AX assay for automated processing in human lymphocytes. 1. Technological aspects.

Authors:  Helen C Turner; David J Brenner; Youhua Chen; Antonella Bertucci; Jian Zhang; Hongliang Wang; Oleksandra V Lyulko; Yanping Xu; Igor Shuryak; Julia Schaefer; Nabil Simaan; Gerhard Randers-Pehrson; Y Lawrence Yao; Sally A Amundson; Guy Garty
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  The RABIT: a rapid automated biodosimetry tool for radiological triage.

Authors:  Guy Garty; Youhua Chen; Alessio Salerno; Helen Turner; Jian Zhang; Oleksandra Lyulko; Antonella Bertucci; Yanping Xu; Hongliang Wang; Nabil Simaan; Gerhard Randers-Pehrson; Y Lawrence Yao; Sally A Amundson; David J Brenner
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

8.  Dosimetry based on EPR spectral analysis of fingernail clippings.

Authors:  Dean E Wilcox; Xiaoming He; Jiang Gui; Andres E Ruuge; Hongbin Li; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

9.  Synopsis of partial-body radiation diagnostic biomarkers and medical management of radiation injury workshop.

Authors:  Pataje G S Prasanna; William F Blakely; Jean-Marc Bertho; John P Chute; Eric P Cohen; Ronald E Goans; Marcy B Grace; Patricia K Lillis-Hearne; David C Lloyd; Ludy C H W Lutgens; Viktor Meineke; Natalia I Ossetrova; Alexander Romanyukha; Julie D Saba; Daniel J Weisdorf; Andrzej Wojcik; Eduardo G Yukihara; Terry C Pellmar
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  Gamma-H2AX biodosimetry for use in large scale radiation incidents: comparison of a rapid '96 well lyse/fix' protocol with a routine method.

Authors:  Jayne Moquet; Stephen Barnard; Kai Rothkamm
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.984

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Metabolomic applications in radiation biodosimetry: exploring radiation effects through small molecules.

Authors:  Evan L Pannkuk; Albert J Fornace; Evagelia C Laiakis
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 2.694

Review 2.  Advances in in vivo EPR Tooth BIOdosimetry: Meeting the targets for initial triage following a large-scale radiation event.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Benjamin B Williams; Wilson Schreiber; Gaixin Du; Victoria A Wood; Maciej M Kmiec; Sergey V Petryakov; Eugene Demidenko; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Metabolic Dysregulation after Neutron Exposures Expected from an Improvised Nuclear Device.

Authors:  Evagelia C Laiakis; Yi-Wen Wang; Erik F Young; Andrew D Harken; Yanping Xu; Lubomir Smilenov; Guy Y Garty; David J Brenner; Albert J Fornace
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  Developments in Biodosimetry Methods for Triage With a Focus on X-band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance In Vivo Fingernail Dosimetry.

Authors:  Steven G Swarts; Jason W Sidabras; Oleg Grinberg; Dmitriy S Tipikin; Maciej M Kmiec; Sergey V Petryakov; Wilson Schreiber; Victoria A Wood; Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 5.  Evolution and Optimization of Tooth Models for Testing In Vivo EPR Tooth Dosimetry.

Authors:  Kyo Kobayashi; Ruhong Dong; Roberto Javier Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams; Gaixin Du; Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 0.972

6.  Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Metabolomics of Urine and Serum from Nonhuman Primates Exposed to Ionizing Radiation: Impacts on the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle and Protein Metabolism.

Authors:  Evan L Pannkuk; Evagelia C Laiakis; Simon Authier; Karen Wong; Albert J Fornace
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.466

7.  Automatic reagent handling and assay processing of human biospecimens inside a transportation container for a medical disaster response against radiation.

Authors:  Adam R Akkad; Jian Gu; Brett Duane; Alan Norquist; David J Brenner; Adarsh Ramakumar; Frederic Zenhausern
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  Development of a novel mouth model as an alternative tool to test the effectiveness of an in vivo EPR dosimetry system.

Authors:  Kyo Kobayashi; Ruhong Dong; Roberto Javier Nicolalde; Paul Calderon; Gaixin Du; Benjamin B Williams; Masaichi-Chang-Il Lee; Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  NIH Policies and Regulatory Pathways to U.S. FDA licensure: Strategies to Inform Advancement of Radiation Medical Countermeasures and Biodosimetry Devices.

Authors:  Merriline M Satyamitra; Zulmarie Perez-Horta; Andrea L DiCarlo; David R Cassatt; Carmen I Rios; Paul W Price; Lanyn P Taliaferro
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 3.372

Review 10.  Scientific and Logistical Considerations When Screening for Radiation Risks by Using Biodosimetry Based on Biological Effects of Radiation Rather than Dose: The Need for Prior Measurements of Homogeneity and Distribution of Dose.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood; Vijay K Singh; Steven G Swarts
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.922

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.