The influence of follow-up on DS02 low-dose ranges with a significant excess relative risk of all solid cancer in the Japanese A-bomb survivors.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Deep learning for incidence rate prediction and radiation risk assessment of solid tumors.Scientific reports · 2026
   Article
2. Relationship between follow-up periods and the low-dose ranges with statistically significant radiation-induced risk of all solid cancers in the Russian cohort of Chernobyl emergency workers.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020
   Article
3. Effect of follow-up period on minimal-significant dose in the atomic-bomb survivor studies.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2018
   Article

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

Indexed as