Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25496314›Full record

ArticleRadiation research2015

The two-dimensional Monte Carlo: a new methodologic paradigm for dose reconstruction for epidemiological studies.

Steven L Simon, F Owen Hoffman, Eduard Hofer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The epidemiology of lung cancer following radiation exposure.International journal of radiation biology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Thyroid doses in Ukraine due toRadiation and environmental biophysics · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Steven L Simona  Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
F Owen Hoffman
Eduard Hofer

Funding

Intramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS Y03 CO005117NCI NIH HHS Y3-CO-5117PHS HHS Y2-AL-5077
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retrospective dose estimation, particularly dose reconstruction that supports epidemiological investigations of health risk, relies on various strategies that include models of physical processes and exposure conditions with detail ranging from simple to complex. Quantification of dose uncertainty is an essential component of assessments for health risk studies since, as is well understood, it is impossible to retrospectively determine the true dose for each person. To address uncertainty in dose estimation, numerical simulation tools have become commonplace and there is now an increased understanding about the needs and what is required for models used to estimate cohort doses (in the absence of direct measurement) to evaluate dose response. It now appears that for dose-response algorithms to derive the best, unbiased estimate of health risk, we need to understand the type, magnitude and interrelationships of the uncertainties of model assumptions, parameters and input data used in the associated dose estimation models. Heretofore, uncertainty analysis of dose estimates did not always properly distinguish between categories of errors, e.g., uncertainty that is specific to each subject (i.e., unshared error), and uncertainty of doses from a lack of understanding and knowledge about parameter values that are shared to varying degrees by numbers of subsets of the cohort. While mathematical propagation of errors by Monte Carlo simulation methods has been used for years to estimate the uncertainty of an individual subject's dose, it was almost always conducted without consideration of dependencies between subjects. In retrospect, these types of simple analyses are not suitable for studies with complex dose models, particularly when important input data are missing or otherwise not available. The dose estimation strategy presented here is a simulation method that corrects the previous deficiencies of analytical or simple Monte Carlo error propagation methods and is termed, due to its capability to maintain separation between shared and unshared errors, the two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) procedure. Simply put, the 2DMC method simulates alternative, possibly true, sets (or vectors) of doses for an entire cohort rather than a single set that emerges when each individual's dose is estimated independently from other subjects. Moreover, estimated doses within each simulated vector maintain proper inter-relationships such that the estimated doses for members of a cohort subgroup that share common lifestyle attributes and sources of uncertainty are properly correlated. The 2DMC procedure simulates inter-individual variability of possibly true doses within each dose vector and captures the influence of uncertainty in the values of dosimetric parameters across multiple realizations of possibly true vectors of cohort doses. The primary characteristic of the 2DMC approach, as well as its strength, are defined by the proper separation between uncertainties shared by members of the entire cohort or members of defined cohort subsets, and uncertainties that are individual-specific and therefore unshared.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic StudiesMonte Carlo MethodHumansRadiometryRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID25496314
PMCPMC4423557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.