Cited by 13Effects of Radiation ExposureClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlImmunotoxicology and immune responses

Comparison of Two Methods for the Determination of the Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Blood Cell Counts in Mice

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Kennedy, Ann R., Romero-Weaver, Ana L.·2012·International Journal of Biomedical Science

Abstract

A reliable technique is needed to determine the effect of ionizing radiation on white blood cell (WBC) counts. Facilities that utilize automated methods can provide this service. However, utilizing external facilities can introduce additional variables, such as differences between time of sample collection and time of sample processing, which may affect the results. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether an automated method at an external facility can accurately determine radiation-induced changes in total WBC, lymphocyte and granulocyte counts when samples are analyzed at periods of time up to 24 hours after collection and stored either at room temperature or at 4oC. To accomplish this, we compared automated blood cell counts determined at an external facility with our manual blood cell counts processed immediately after sample collection or 24 h after sample collection and stored either at room temperature or 4°C from mice exposed to 2 Gy proton or 2 Gy gamma radiation. Our results show a close correlation and good agreement between the two methods, indicating that neither a delay of 24 hours in sample processing nor storage temperature affected white blood cell counts. Analysis of the effects of radiation on blood cell counts by either manual or automated cell counts revealed a statistically significant decrease in lymphocyte and granulocyte counts at different days post-irradiation, with no statistically significant difference between the methods employed; therefore both manual and automated blood cell counts are reliable methods to determine the effects of ionizing radiation in blood cells.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.59566/ijbs.2012.8007

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Department of Radiation Oncology, U. O. P. S. O. M., Kennedy, A. R., & Romero-Weaver, A. L.
Venue
International Journal of Biomedical Science
Published
2012-03-15
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
7-15
ISSN
  • 1550-9702 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-2810
OpenAlex
W4386844812
Cited by
13
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Biomedical Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
Keywords
ionizing radiation effects, white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, granulocyte count, automated blood cell counting, sample storage temperature, sample processing delay, proton radiation, gamma radiation, mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review