Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31346699›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2019

Risk bases can complement dose bases for implementing and optimising a radiological protection strategy in urgent and transition emergency phases.

Linda Walsh, Alexander Ulanowski, Jan Christian Kaiser, Clemens Woda, Wolfgang Raskob

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Linda WalshDepartment of Physics, Science Faculty, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zürich, Switzerland. linda.walsh@uzh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7399-9191
Alexander UlanowskiInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Jan Christian KaiserInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Clemens WodaInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Wolfgang RaskobInstitute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hermann-von-Helmholtz Platz 1, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current radiological emergency response recommendations have been provided by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in comprehensive Safety Standards. These standards provide dose-based guidance for decision making (e.g., on sheltering or relocation) via generic criteria in terms of effective dose in the range from 20 mSv per year, during transition from emergency to existing exposure situation, to 100 mSv, acute or annual, in the urgent phase of a nuclear accident. The purpose of this paper was to examine how such dose reference levels directly translate into radiation-related risks of the main stochastic detrimental health effects (cancer). Methodologies, provided by the World Health Organization after the Fukushima accident, for calculating the lifetime and 20 year cancer risks and for attributing relevant organ doses from effective doses, have been applied here for this purpose with new software, designed to be available for use immediately after a nuclear accident. A new feature in this software is a comprehensive accounting for uncertainty via simulation technique, so that the risks may now be presented with realistic confidence intervals. The types of cancer risks considered here are time-integrated over lifetime and the first 20 years after exposure for all solid cancers and either the most radiation-sensitive types of cancer, i.e., leukaemia and female breast cancer, or the most radiation-relevant type of cancer occurring early in life, i.e., thyroid. It is demonstrated here how reference dose levels translate differently into specific cancer risk levels (with varying confidence interval sizes), depending on age at exposure, gender, time-frame at-risk and type of cancer considered. This demonstration applies German population data and considers external exposures. Further work is required to comprehensively extend this methodology to internal exposures that are likely to be important in the early stages of a nuclear accident. A discussion is provided here on the potential for such risk-based information to be used by decision makers, in the urgent and transition phases of nuclear emergencies, to identify protective measures (e.g., sheltering, evacuation) in a differential way (i.e., for particularly susceptible sub-groups of a population).

Indexed as

EmergenciesHumansInternational AgenciesRadiation DosageRadiation MonitoringRadiation ProtectionRisk FactorsHealth risk assessmentLifetime riskNuclear accidentsRadiation protectionRadiological emergency response

Identifiers

PMID31346699
PMCPMC6768908

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.