Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29435340›Full record

ReviewAnnals of occupational and environmental medicine2018

Radiation-related occupational cancer and its recognition criteria in South Korea.

Songwon Seo, Dalnim Lee, Ki Moon Seong, Sunhoo Park, Soo-Geun Kim, Jong-Uk Won, Young Woo Jin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of occupational and environmental medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Predictive DNA damage signaling for low‑dose ionizing radiation.International journal of molecular medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Acute radiation syndrome in a non-destructive testing worker: a case report.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2018
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Songwon Seo1National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01812 Republic of Korea.
Dalnim Lee1National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01812 Republic of Korea.
Ki Moon Seong1National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01812 Republic of Korea.
Sunhoo Park1National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01812 Republic of Korea.
Soo-Geun Kim3Department of Occupational Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong-Uk Won4The Institute for Occupational Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young Woo Jin1National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01812 Republic of Korea.
Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ionizing radiation is a well-known carcinogen, and is listed as one carcinogenic agent of occupational cancer. Given the increase in the number of workers exposed to radiation, as well as the increase in concern regarding occupational cancer, the number of radiation-related occupational cancer claims is expected to increase. Unlike exposure assessment of other carcinogenic agents in the workplace, such as asbestos and benzene, radiation exposure is usually assessed on an individual basis with personal dosimeters, which makes it feasible to assess whether a worker's cancer occurrence is associated with their individual exposure. However, given the absence of a threshold dose for cancer initiation, it remains difficult to identify radiation exposure as the root cause of occupational cancer. Moreover, the association between cancer and radiation exposure in the workplace has not been clearly established due to a lack of scientific evidence. Therefore, criteria for the recognition of radiation-related occupational cancer should be carefully reviewed and updated with new scientific evidence and social consensus. The current criteria in Korea are valid in terms of eligible radiogenic cancer sites, adequate latent period, assessment of radiation exposure, and probability of causation. However, reducing uncertainty with respect to the determination of causation between exposure and cancer and developing more specific criteria that considers mixed exposure to radiation and other carcinogenic agents remains an important open question.

Indexed as

KoreaOccupational cancerRadiation exposureRecognition

Identifiers

PMID29435340
PMCPMC5797363
OpenAlexW2798159210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.