Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27544074›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental radioactivity2016

Spatial prediction of naturally occurring gamma radiation in Great Britain.

P Chernyavskiy, G M Kendall, R Wakeford, M P Little

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental radioactivity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation.International journal of radiation biology · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Epidemiological studies of natural sources of radiation and childhood cancer: current challenges and future perspectives.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2020
    Review
  5. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

P ChernyavskiyRadiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, DHHS, NIH, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD 20892-9778, USA. Electronic address: pavel.chernyavskiy@nih.gov.
G M KendallCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. Electronic address: gerald.kendall@ceu.ox.ac.uk.
R WakefordCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Ellen Wilkinson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Electronic address: richard.wakeford@gmail.com.
M P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, DHHS, NIH, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD 20892-9778, USA. Electronic address: mark.little@nih.gov.
United States Department of Health and Human Services · USUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Studies of Populations Exposed to Environmental Sources of RadiationZIACP010132 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI CAHOON, ELIZABETH · 2009 to 2025
$35.2M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gamma radiation from natural sources is an important component of background radiation, and correlates with childhood leukaemia risk in Great Britain. The geographic variation of indoor gamma radiation dose-rates in Great Britain is explored using various geo-statistical methods. A multi-resolution Gaussian-process model using radial basis functions with 2, 4, or 8 components, is fitted via maximum likelihood, and a non-spatial model is also used, fitted by ordinary least squares. Because of the dataset size (N = 10,199), four other parametric spatial models are fitted by variogram-fitting. A randomly selected 70:30 split is used for fitting:validation. The models are evaluated based on their predictive performance as measured by Mean Absolute Error, Mean Squared Error, as well as Pearson correlation and rank-correlation between predicted and actual dose-rates. Each of the four parametric models (Matérn, Gaussian, Bessel, Spherical) fitted the empirical variogram well, and yielded similar predictions at >50 km separation, although with more substantial differences in predicted variograms at <50 km. The multi-resolution Gaussian-process model with 8 components had the best predictive accuracy among the models considered. The Spherical, Bessel, Matérn, Gaussian and ordinary least squares models had progressively worse predictive performance, the ordinary least squares model being particularly poor in this respect.

Indexed as

Background RadiationGamma RaysModels, StatisticalRadiation MonitoringModels, ChemicalNormal DistributionUnited KingdomChildhood cancerKrigingMulti-resolution Gaussian processNatural gamma radiationOrdinary least squaresVariogram

Identifiers

PMID27544074
PMCPMC5048584
OpenAlexW2512896056

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.