ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2024
Application of multi-method-multi-model inference to radiation related solid cancer excess risks models for astronaut risk assessment.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- European astronaut radiation related cancer risk assessment using dosimetric calculations of organ dose equivalents.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2024Article
- System of radiological protection: Towards a consistent framework on Earth and in space.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of including model-averaged excess radiation risks (ER) into a measure of radiation attributed decrease of survival (RADS) for the outcome all solid cancer incidence and the impact on the uncertainties is demonstrated. It is shown that RADS applying weighted model averaged ER based on AIC weights result in smaller risk estimates with narrower 95% CI than RADS using ER based on BIC weights. Further a multi-method-multi-model inference approach is introduced that allows calculating one general RADS estimate providing a weighted average risk estimate for a lunar and a Mars mission. For males the general RADS estimate is found to be 0.42% (95% CI: 0.38%; 0.45%) and for females 0.67% (95% CI: 0.59%; 0.75%) for a lunar mission and 2.45% (95% CI: 2.23%; 2.67%) for males and 3.91% (95% CI: 3.44%; 4.39%) for females for a Mars mission considering an age at exposure of 40 years and an attained age of 65 years. It is recommended to include these types of uncertainties and to include model-averaged excess risks in astronaut risk assessment.
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.