ArticleBritish journal of cancer2003
Cancer in the offspring of radiation workers: an investigation of employment timing and a reanalysis using updated dose information.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infantile neuroblastoma and maternal occupational exposure to medical agents.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- The Likelihood of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Genetic Disease (Transgenerational Effects) from Exposure to Radioactive Fallout from the 1945 Trinity Atomic Bomb Test.Health physics · 2020Article
- Childhood cancer research in oxford III: The work of CCRG on ionising radiation.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- Childhood cancer research in Oxford I: the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancers.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- A paternal environmental legacy: evidence for epigenetic inheritance through the male germ line.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2014Article
- Cancer in the offspring of female radiation workers: a record linkage study.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An earlier case-control study found no evidence of paternal preconceptional irradiation (PPI) as a cause of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (LNHL). Although fathers of children with LNHL were more likely to have been radiation workers, the risk was most marked in those with doses below the level of detection. The timing of paternal employment as a radiation worker has now been examined. The previously reported elevated risk of LNHL in the children of male radiation workers was limited to those whose fathers were still radiation workers at conception or whose employment also continued until diagnosis. Children whose fathers stopped radiation work prior to their conception were found to have no excess risk of LNHL. It was not possible to distinguish between the risks associated with paternal radiation work at conception and at the time of diagnosis. A reanalysis of the original study hypothesis incorporating updated dosimetric information gave similar results to those obtained previously. In particular, the risks of LNHL did not show an association with radiation doses received by the father before conception. It seems likely that the increased risk of LNHL among the children of male radiation workers is associated with an increased exposure to some infective agent consequent on high levels of population mixing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.