Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26010707›Full record

ArticleRadiation research2015

Dose Estimation for a Study of Nuclear Workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America: Methods for the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS).

I Thierry-Chef, D B Richardson, R D Daniels, M Gillies, G B Hamra, R Haylock, A Kesminiene, D Laurier, K Leuraud, M Moissonnier and 4 more

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 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Worker studies and their interpretation.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

14 authors.

I Thierry-Chefa  International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;
D B Richardsonb  Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;
R D Danielsc  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio;
M Gilliesd  Public Health England, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (PHE-CRCE), Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom;
G B Hamrae  Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
R Haylockf  Public Health England, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (PHE-CRCE), Moor Row, Cumbria, United Kingdom;
A Kesminienea  International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;
D Laurierg  Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), PRP-HOM/SRBE/LEPID, Fontenay aux Roses, France;
K Leuraudg  Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), PRP-HOM/SRBE/LEPID, Fontenay aux Roses, France;
M Moissonniera  International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;
J O'Haganf  Public Health England, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (PHE-CRCE), Moor Row, Cumbria, United Kingdom;
M K Schubauer-Beriganc  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio;
E Cardish  Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain;
INWORKS Consortium

Funding

Combined analysis of mortality among nuclear workersR03OH010056 · OH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID B · 2011 to 2012
$140k
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NIOSH CDC HHS R03 OH010056NIOSH CDC HHS R03.OH-010056World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the framework of the International Nuclear Workers Study conducted in France, the UK and the U.S. (INWORKS), updated and expanded methods were developed to convert recorded doses of ionizing radiation to estimates of organ doses or individual personal dose equivalent [H(p)(10)] for a total number of 308,297 workers, including 40,035 women. This approach accounts for differences in dosimeter response to predominant workplace energy and geometry of exposure and for the recently published ICRP report on dose coefficients for men and women separately. The overall mean annual individual personal dose equivalent, including zero doses, is 1.73 mSv [median = 0.42; interquartile range (IQR): 0.07, 1.59]. Associated individual organ doses were estimated. INWORKS includes workers who had potential for exposure to neutrons. Therefore, we analyzed neutron dosimetry data to identify workers potentially exposed to neutrons. We created a time-varying indicator for each worker, classifying them according to whether they had a positive recorded neutron dose and if so, whether their neutron dose ever exceeded 10% of their total external penetrating radiation dose. The number of workers flagged as being exposed to neutrons was 13% for the full cohort, with 15% of the cohort in France, 12% of the cohort in the UK and 14% in the U.S. We also used available information on in vivo and bioassay monitoring to identify workers with known depositions or suspected internal contaminations. As a result of this work, information is now available that will allow various types of sensitivity analyses.

Indexed as

Nuclear ReactorsFemaleFranceHumansMaleNeutronsOccupational ExposurePhotonsRadiometryUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26010707
PMCPMC4908811

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.