Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16046608›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2005

Investigating time patterns of variation in radiation cancer associations.

D B Richardson, J P Ashmore

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Thyroid Cancer Incidence around the Belgian Nuclear Sites, 2000-2014.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Latency models for analyses of protracted exposures.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2009
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Negating the impact of radiation in development of cancers.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

D B RichardsonDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8050, USA. david_richardson@unc.edu
J P Ashmore
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

NIOSH CDC HHS R03-OH0721-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn occupational settings, carcinogenic exposures are often repeated or protracted over time. The time pattern of exposure accrual may influence subsequent temporal patterns of cancer risk. The authors present several simple models that may be used to evaluate the influence of time since exposure or age at exposure on cancer incidence or mortality in an occupational cohort.

methodsA cohort of 40,415 nuclear industry workers was identified via the Canadian National Dose Registry. Vital status and cause of death were ascertained through 1994. Associations between ionising radiation and mortality due to lung cancer, leukaemia, and cancers other than lung and leukaemia were quantified using conditional logistic regression models with risk sets constructed by incidence density sampling. A step function, a bilinear function, and a sigmoid function were used to evaluate temporal variation in exposure effects.

resultsStep and sigmoid functions were used to explore latency and morbidity periods. For analyses of lung cancer, leukaemia, and other cancers the best fitting models were obtained when exposure assignment was lagged by 13, 0, and 5 years, respectively. A bilinear function was used to evaluate whether exposure effects diminished with time since exposure. In analyses of lung cancer and leukaemia, there was evidence that radiation effects attenuated with protracted time since exposure. In analyses of age at exposure, there was evidence of variation in radiation mortality associations for analyses of lung cancer and leukaemia; discounting radiation doses accrued at younger ages (for example, 15-35 years) led to significant improvements in model fit.

conclusionsThis paper illustrates empirical approaches to evaluating temporal variation in the effect of a protracted exposure on disease risk.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge of OnsetCanadaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLeukemiaLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID16046608
PMCPMC1741074
OpenAlexW2026007019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.