ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2010
Mean cancer mortality rates in low versus high elevation counties in Texas.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization of artificial intelligence approach for prediction of DLP values for abdominal CT scans: A high accuracy estimation for risk assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Radiation-hormesis phenotypes, the related mechanisms and implications for disease prevention and therapy.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2014Article
- Land elevation and cancer mortality in u.s. Cities and counties using median elevations derived from geographic information systems.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2013Article
- The cancer mortality in high natural radiation areas in poland.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2012Article
- Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is controversy as to whether low levels of radiation (i.e., < 5 rem) pose a health risk. This brief inquiry compares archived cancer mortality data in counties having relatively low (0-250 feet above sea level), medium (500-1000 feet above sea level), and high (3000+ feet above sea level) elevations also having corresponding greater natural background levels of radiation respectively. Cancer mortality was found to be lowest in the high elevation counties (mean = 58.2) followed by low elevation counties (67.5) and then medium elevation counties (70.4). Statistically significant differences were found between low -high elevations (p = 0.003), and medium - high elevations (p = 0.010), but not between low and medium elevations (p = 0.5). More rigorous research, with an accounting of confounding variables, is indicated.
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.