ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2017
Selection of reference groups in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Summary of radiation effects on incidence of solid cancers in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958-2009.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Importance of reference group selection in the evaluation of cancer incidence.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Comparison of All Solid Cancer Mortality and Incidence Dose-Response in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1958-2009.Radiation research · 2022Article
- Lifetime risk of suicide among survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2021Article
- Radiation effects on atherosclerosis in atomic bomb survivors: a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Misclassification of primary liver cancer in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors.International journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Radiation risk of central nervous system tumors in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors, 1958-2009.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Radiation and Risk of Liver, Biliary Tract, and Pancreatic Cancers among Atomic Bomb Survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 1958-2009.Radiation research · 2019Article
- Effect of Heterogeneity in Background Incidence on Inference about the Solid-Cancer Radiation Dose Response in Atomic Bomb Survivors.Radiation research · 2019Article
- Radiation Risks of Uterine Cancer in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2018Article
- Incidence of Breast Cancer in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009.Radiation research · 2018Article
- Population Density in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Before the Bombings in 1945: Its Measurement and Impact on Radiation Risk Estimates in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors.American journal of epidemiology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In cohort studies, unbiased estimation of exposure-outcome associations requires selection of an appropriate reference group of unexposed individuals. We illustrate strategies for analyzing cohort data with multiple potential reference groups. We analyzed the association between radiation exposure and incidence of first primary solid cancer among 105,444 participants of the Life Span Study (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 1958-2009). Potential reference groups included zero-dose survivors at different ground distances from the hypocenter (internal) and city residents who were not in either city at the time of the bombings (external). DS02R1 weighted absorbed colon doses were estimated by the DS02 dosimetry system. Piecewise constant hazard models estimated excess relative risks of first primary solid cancer. We focused on sex-averaged excess relative risks and the shape of the dose-response curve. A model with internal standardization provided a sex-averaged excess relative risk of 0.510, 95% confidence interval: (0.414, 0.612) per gray of weighted absorbed colon dose, as well as strong evidence of a curvilinear dose response among males (P = 0.008). Selection of not-in-city residents as the reference group resulted in a larger excess relative risk of 0.560, 95% confidence interval: (0.467, 0.657) per gray, and reduced evidence of a curvilinear dose response among males (P = 0.042). These differences were particularly apparent at weighted absorbed colon doses < 1 gray. In cohort studies, selection of an appropriate reference group requires understanding of the nature of unmeasured confounding to which the results could be sensitive.
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.