ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2018
Effect of follow-up period on minimal-significant dose in the atomic-bomb survivor studies.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning for incidence rate prediction and radiation risk assessment of solid tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Comparison of All Solid Cancer Mortality and Incidence Dose-Response in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1958-2009.Radiation research · 2022Article
- In Reply to Welsh et al.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2021Article
- Radiation effects on atherosclerosis in atomic bomb survivors: a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Effect of Heterogeneity in Background Incidence on Inference about the Solid-Cancer Radiation Dose Response in Atomic Bomb Survivors.Radiation research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It was recently suggested that earlier reports on solid-cancer mortality and incidence in the Life Span Study of atomic-bomb survivors contain still-useful information about low-dose risk that should not be ignored, because longer follow-up may lead to attenuated estimates of low-dose risk due to longer time since exposure. Here it is demonstrated, through the use of all follow-up data and risk models stratified on period of follow-up (as opposed to sub-setting the data by follow-up period), that the appearance of risk attenuation over time may be the result of less-precise risk estimation-in particular, imprecise estimation of effect-modification parameters-in the earlier periods. Longer follow-up, in addition to allowing more-precise estimation of risk due to larger numbers of radiation-related cases, provides more-precise adjustment for background mortality or incidence and more-accurate assessment of risk modification by age at exposure and attained age. It is concluded that the latest follow-up data are most appropriate for inferring low-dose risk. Furthermore, if researchers are interested in effects of time since exposure, the most-recent follow-up data should be considered rather than the results of earlier reports.
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.