ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2016
External radiation dose and cancer mortality among French nuclear workers: considering potential confounding by internal radiation exposure.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated Mortality Analysis of SELTINE, the French Cohort of Nuclear Workers, 1968-2014.Cancers · 2022Article
- Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Review
- Acute and late effects of combined internal and external radiation exposures on the hematopoietic system.International journal of radiation biology · 2019Article
- Low-dose ionizing radiation increases the mortality risk of solid cancers in nuclear industry workers: A meta-analysis.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFrench nuclear workers have detailed records of their occupational exposure to external radiation that have been used to examine associations with subsequent cancer mortality. However, some workers were also exposed to internal contamination by radionuclides. This study aims to assess the potential for bias due to confounding by internal contamination of estimates of associations between external radiation exposure and cancer mortality.
methodsA cohort of 59,004 workers employed for at least 1 year between 1950 and 1994 by CEA (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique), AREVA NC, or EDF (Electricité de France) and badge-monitored for external radiation exposure were followed through 2004 to assess vital status and cause of death. A flag based on a workstation-exposure matrix defined four levels of potential for internal contamination. Standardized mortality ratios were assessed for each level of the internal contamination indicator. Poisson regression was used to quantify associations between external radiation exposure and cancer mortality, adjusting for potential internal contamination.
resultsFor solid cancer, the mortality deficit tended to decrease as the levels of potential for internal contamination increased. For solid cancer and leukemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia, adjusting the dose-response analysis on the internal contamination indicator did not markedly change the excess relative risk per Sievert of external radiation dose.
conclusionsThis study suggests that in this cohort, neglecting information on internal dosimetry while studying the association between external dose and cancer mortality does not generate a substantial bias. To investigate more specifically the health effects of internal contamination, an effort is underway to estimate organ doses due to internal contamination.
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.