ArticleInternational journal of cancer2020
Misclassification of primary liver cancer in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inference under outcome misclassification in health risk models using a simulation study with a validation dataset.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalizations: a national all ages cross-section evaluation, 2020-2024.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Provider reported challenges with completing death certificates: A focus group study demonstrating potential sources of error.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Primary liver cancer is difficult to diagnose accurately at death, due to metastases from nearby organs and to concomitant diseases, such as chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis. Trends in diagnostic accuracy could affect radiation risk estimates for incident liver cancer by altering background rates or by impacting risk modification by sex and age. We quantified the potential impact of death-certificate inaccuracies on radiation risk estimates for liver cancer in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors. True-positive and false-negative rates were obtained from a previous study that compared death-certificate causes of death with those based on pathological review, from 1958 to 1987. We assumed various scenarios for misclassification rates after 1987. We obtained estimated true positives and estimated false negatives by stratified sampling from binomial distributions with probabilities given by the true-positive and false-negative rates, respectively. Poisson regression methods were applied to highly stratified person-year tables of corrected case counts and accrued person years. During the study period (1958-2009), there were 1,885 cases of liver cancer, which included 383 death-certificate-only (DCO) cases; 1,283 cases with chronic liver disease as the underlying cause of death; and 150 DCO cases of pancreatic cancer among 105,444 study participants. Across the range of scenarios considered, radiation risk estimates based on corrected case counts were attenuated, on average, by 13-30%. Our results indicated that radiation risk estimates for liver cancer were potentially sensitive to death-certificate inaccuracies. Additional data are needed to inform misclassification rates in recent years.
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.