ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2013
Independent analysis of the radiation risk for leukaemia in children and adults with mortality data (1950-2003) of Japanese A-bomb survivors.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Million Person Study Innovation: Evaluating Cognitive Impairment and other Morbidity Outcomes from Chronic Radiation Exposure Through Linkages with the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Assessment and Claims Data.Radiation research · 2024Article
- ProZES: the methodology and software tool for assessment of assigned share of radiation in probability of cancer occurrence.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020Article
- Radio-biologically motivated modeling of radiation risks of mortality from ischemic heart diseases in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020Article
- Dose-responses for mortality from cerebrovascular and heart diseases in atomic bomb survivors: 1950-2003.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2018Article
- Simulation-extrapolation method to address errors in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on solid cancer and leukaemia mortality risk estimates, 1950-2003.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2015Article
- The risk of leukaemia in young children from exposure to tritium and carbon-14 in the discharges of German nuclear power stations and in the fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2014Article
- Article
- A method for determining weights for excess relative risk and excess absolute risk when applied in the calculation of lifetime risk of cancer from radiation exposure.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2013Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent analysis of leukaemia mortality in Japanese A-bomb survivors has applied descriptive models, collected together from previous studies, to derive a joint excess relative risk estimate (ERR) by multi-model inference (MMI) (Walsh and Kaiser in Radiat Environ Biophys 50:21-35, 2011). The models use a linear-quadratic dose response with differing dose effect modifiers. In the present study, a set of more than 40 models has been submitted to a rigorous statistical selection procedure which fosters the parsimonious deployment of model parameters based on pairwise likelihood ratio tests. Nested models were consequently excluded from risk assessment. The set comprises models of the excess absolute risk (EAR) and two types of non-standard ERR models with sigmoidal responses or two line spline functions with a changing slope at a break point. Due to clearly higher values of the Akaike Information Criterion, none of the EAR models has been selected, but two non-standard ERR models qualified for MMI. The preferred ERR model applies a purely quadratic dose response which is slightly damped by an exponential factor at high doses and modified by a power function for attained age. Compared to the previous analysis, the present study reports similar point estimates and confidence intervals (CI) of the ERR from MMI for doses between 0.5 and 2.5 Sv. However, at lower doses, the point estimates are markedly reduced by factors between two and five, although the reduction was not statistically significant. The 2.5 % percentiles of the ERR from the preferred quadratic-exponential model did not fall below zero risk in exposure scenarios for children, adolescents and adults at very low doses down to 10 mSv. Yet, MMI produced risk estimates with a positive 2.5 % percentile only above doses of some 300 mSv. Compared to CI from a single model of choice, CI from MMI are broadened in cohort strata with low statistical power by a combination of risk extrapolations from several models. Reverting to MMI can relieve the dilemma of needing to choose between models with largely different consequences for risk assessment in public health.
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.