ArticleRadiation research2022
Comparison of All Solid Cancer Mortality and Incidence Dose-Response in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1958-2009.
Article in Radiation research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological considerations on the estimation of non-initial radiation effects among Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors: a commentary on Ohtaki et al. (2025).Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Radiation Exposure and Cancer Mortality in Populations Living Around the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site in Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Comparing dose response of cancer incidence in Sweden after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident with Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2025Article
- Summary of radiation effects on incidence of solid cancers in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958-2009.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring.Carcinogenesis · 2025Review
- Recent evolution of risk analyses in atomic bomb survivor studies: new methods and applications.Carcinogenesis · 2025Review
- The importance of data from the atomic bomb survivors for international radiological protection.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.Health physics · 2025Article
- Site-specific cancer mortality after low-level exposure to ionizing radiation: findings from an update of the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS).American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Effects of non-initial radiation exposure on solid cancer mortality risk among Hiroshima A-bomb survivors.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Influence of age and sex on the relative biological effectiveness of 13-keV/μm carbon ions for lifespan shortening of B6C3F1 Mice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Population Studies and Molecular Mechanisms of Human Radioadaptive Capabilities: Is It Time to Rethink Radiation Safety Standards?International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- A note on potential gains in precision of radiation risk estimates from joint analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Updated findings on temporal variation in radiation-effects on cancer mortality in an international cohort of nuclear workers (INWORKS).European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.European radiology · 2024Review
- Establishment and activity of the planning and acting network for low dose radiation research in Japan (PLANET): 2016-2023.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Optimisation of protection in the medical exposure of recurrent adult patients due to computed tomography procedures: development of recurrent exposures reference levels.European radiology · 2024Article
- Harmonizing heterogeneous transcriptomics datasets for machine learning-based analysis to identify spaceflown murine liver-specific changes.NPJ microgravity · 2024Article
- A comparative study on the dose-effect of low-dose radiation based on microdosimetric analysis and single-cell sequencing technology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recent analysis of all solid cancer incidence (1958-2009) in the Life Span Study (LSS) revealed evidence of upward curvature in the radiation dose response among males but not females. Upward curvature in sex-averaged excess relative risk (ERR) for all solid cancer mortality (1950-2003) was also observed in the 0-2 Gy dose range. As reasons for non-linearity in the LSS are not completely understood, we conducted dose-response analyses for all solid cancer mortality and incidence applying similar methods [1958-2009 follow-up, DS02R1 doses, including subjects not-in-city (NIC) at the time of the bombing] and statistical models. Incident cancers were ascertained from Hiroshima and Nagasaki cancer registries, while cause of death was ascertained from death certificates throughout Japan. The study included 105,444 LSS subjects who were alive and not known to have cancer before January 1, 1958 (80,205 with dose estimates and 25,239 NIC subjects). Between 1958 and 2009, there were 3.1 million person-years (PY) and 22,538 solid cancers for incidence analysis and 3.8 million PY and 15,419 solid cancer deaths for mortality analysis. We fitted sex-specific ERR models adjusted for smoking to both types of data. Over the entire range of doses, solid cancer mortality dose-response exhibited a borderline significant upward curvature among males (P = 0.062) and significant upward curvature among females (P = 0.010); for solid cancer incidence, as before, we found a significant upward curvature among males (P = 0.001) but not among females (P = 0.624). The sex difference in magnitude of dose-response curvature was statistically significant for cancer incidence (P = 0.017) but not for cancer mortality (P = 0.781). The results of analyses in the 0-2 Gy range and restricted lower dose ranges generally supported inferences made about the sex-specific dose-response shape over the entire range of doses for each outcome. Patterns of sex-specific curvature by calendar period (1958-1987 vs. 1988-2009) and age at exposure (0-19 vs. 20-83) varied between mortality and incidence data, particularly among females, although for each outcome there was an indication of curvature among 0-19-year-old male survivors in both calendar periods and among 0-19-year-old female survivors in the recent period. Collectively, our findings indicate that the upward curvature in all solid cancer dose response in the LSS is neither specific to males nor to incidence data; its evidence appears to depend on the composition of sites comprising all solid cancer group and age at exposure or time. Further follow up and site-specific analyses of cancer mortality and incidence will be important to confirm the emerging trend in dose-response curvature among young survivors and unveil the contributing factors and sites.
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.