ArticleRadiation research2022
Reliability of Questionnaire-Based Dose Reconstruction: Human Factor Uncertainties in the Radiation Dosimetry of Chernobyl Cleanup Workers.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of clonal hematopoiesis in families exposed to radiation following the Chornobyl accident.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Dose Reconstruction for Epidemiological Studies among Ukrainian Chernobyl Cleanup Workers.Radiation research · 2024Article
- Recall of residential history and dietary habits during pregnancy and lactation in the distant past: reliability of questionnaire-based radiation doses for persons exposed in utero and early life.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2023Article
- Exploring the alterations and function of skin microbiome mediated by ionizing radiation injury.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This original study aims to quantify the human factor uncertainties in radiation doses for Chernobyl cleanup workers that are associated with errors in direct or proxy personal interviews due to poor memory recall a long time after exposure. Two types of doses due to external irradiation during cleanup mission were calculated independently. First, a "reference" dose, that was calculated using the historical description of cleanup activities reported by 47 cleanup workers shortly after the completion of the cleanup mission. Second, a "current" dose that was calculated using information reported by 47 cleanup workers and respective 24 proxies (colleagues) nominated by cleanup workers during a personal interview conducted more recently, as part of this study, i.e., 25-30 years after their cleanup missions. The Jaccard similarity coefficient for reference and current doses was moderate: the arithmetic mean ± standard deviation was 0.29 ± 0.18 (median = 0.31) and 0.23 ± 0.18 (median = 0.22) for the cleanup worker's and proxy's interviews, respectively. The agreement between two doses was better if the cleanup worker was interviewed rather than his proxy: the median ratio of current to reference dose was 1.0 and 0.56 for cleanup workers and proxies, respectively. The present study has shown that human factor uncertainties lead to underestimation or overestimation of the "true" reference dose for most cleanup workers up to 3 times. In turn, the potential impact of these errors on radiation-related risk estimates should be assessed.
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.