Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34218328›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2021

Methodological improvements to meta-analysis of low dose rate studies and derivation of dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors.

Mark P Little, David J Pawel, Kossi Abalo, Michael Hauptmann

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mark P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9778, USA. mark.little@nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0980-7567
David J PawelOffice of Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Kossi AbaloLaboratoire D'Épidémiologie, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, BP 17, 92262, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-0215
Michael HauptmannInstitute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Strasse 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8539-0148
Environmental Protection Agency · USInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire · FRMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DENational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiological studies of cancer rates associated with external and internal exposure to ionizing radiation have been subject to extensive reviews by various scientific bodies. It has long been assumed that radiation-induced cancer risks at low doses or low-dose rates are lower (per unit dose) than those at higher doses and dose rates. Based on a mixture of experimental and epidemiologic evidence the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended the use of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor for purposes of radiological protection to reduce solid cancer risks obtained from moderate-to-high acute dose studies (e.g. those derived from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors) when applied to low dose or low-dose rate exposures. In the last few years there have been a number of attempts at assessing the effect of extrapolation of dose rate via direct comparison of observed risks in low-dose rate occupational studies and appropriately age/sex-adjusted analyses of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The usual approach is to consider the ratio of the excess relative risks in the two studies, a measure of the inverse of the dose rate effectiveness factor. This can be estimated using standard meta-analysis with inverse weighting of ratios of relative risks using variances derived via the delta method. In this paper certain potential statistical problems in the ratio of estimated excess relative risks for low-dose rate studies to the excess relative risk in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors are discussed, specifically the absence of a well-defined mean and the theoretically unbounded variance of this ratio. A slightly different method of meta-analysis for estimating uncertainties of these ratios is proposed, motivated by Fieller's theorem, which leads to slightly different central estimates and confidence intervals for the dose rate effectiveness factor. However, given the uncertainties in the data, the differences in mean values and uncertainties from the dose rate effectiveness factor estimated using delta-method-based meta-analysis are not substantial, generally less than 70%.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedRadiation DosageHumansRiskUncertaintyDelta methodDose and dose rate effectiveness factorDose rate effectiveness factorFieller’s theoremJapanese atomic bomb survivorsLow dose rate

Identifiers

PMID34218328
PMCPMC10656154
OpenAlexW3181082786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.