Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37253388›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2023

Ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality among US nuclear facility workers.

Kaitlin Kelly-Reif, Steven J Bertke, Robert D Daniels, David B Richardson, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Occupational radiation exposure and cause-specific mortality in a cohort of Canadian medical workers.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Worker studies and their interpretation.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kaitlin Kelly-ReifNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6020-2646
Steven J BertkeNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Robert D DanielsNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
David B RichardsonDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Mary K Schubauer-BeriganEvidence Synthesis and Classification Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe risk of solid cancers from low-level protracted ionizing radiation is not well characterized. Nuclear workers provide valuable information on the effects of ionizing radiation in contemporary exposure scenarios relevant to workers and the public.

methodsWe evaluated the association between penetrating ionizing radiation exposure and solid cancer mortality among a pooled cohort of nuclear workers in the USA, with extended follow-up to examine cancers with long latencies. This analysis includes 101 363 workers from five nuclear facilities, with 12 069 solid cancer deaths between 1944 and 2016. The association between cumulative equivalent dose measured in sieverts (Sv) and solid cancer subtypes were modelled as the excess relative rate per Sv (ERR Sv-1) using Cox regression.

resultsFor the association between ionizing radiation exposure and all solid cancer mortality we observed an elevated rate (ERR Sv-1=0.19; 95% CI: -0.10, 0.52), which was higher among a contemporary sub-cohort of workers first hired in 1960 or later (ERR Sv-1= 2.23; 95% CI: 1.13, 3.49). Similarly, we observed an elevated rate for lung cancer mortality (ERR Sv-1= 0.65; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.30) that was higher among contemporary hires (ERR Sv-1= 2.90; 95% CI: 1.00, 5.26).

conclusionsAlthough concerns remain about confounding, measurement error and precision, this analysis strengthens the evidence base indicating there are radiogenic risks for several solid cancer types.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Radiation-InducedOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureRadiation ExposureHumansRadiation, IonizingcancerIonizing radiationnuclear workerspooled studyradiation protection

Identifiers

PMID37253388
PMCPMC10527884

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.