Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39058334›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of radiation biology2024

Recommendations on statistical approaches to account for dose uncertainties in radiation epidemiologic risk models.

Michael B Bellamy, Jonine L Bernstein, Harry M Cullings, Benjamin French, Helen A Grogan, Kathryn D Held, Mark P Little, Carmen D Tekwe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of radiation biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Colossus: software for radiation epidemiological studies with big data.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Radiophobia Harm, Its Main Cause, and a Proposed Solution.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    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

8 authors.

Michael B BellamyDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0892-7559
Jonine L BernsteinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8634-3837
Harry M CullingsDepartment of Statistics, Radiation Research Effects Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1370-3122
Benjamin FrenchVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9265-5378
Helen A GroganNCRP, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3532-5166
Kathryn D HeldNCRP, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0918-294X
Mark P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0980-7567
Carmen D TekweDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1857-2416

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEpidemiological studies of stochastic radiation health effects such as cancer, meant to estimate risks of the adverse effects as a function of radiation dose, depend largely on estimates of the radiation doses received by the exposed group under study. Those estimates are based on dosimetry that always has uncertainty, which often can be quite substantial. Studies that do not incorporate statistical methods to correct for dosimetric uncertainty may produce biased estimates of risk and incorrect confidence bounds on those estimates. This paper reviews commonly used statistical methods to correct radiation risk regressions for dosimetric uncertainty, with emphasis on some newer methods. We begin by describing the types of dose uncertainty that may occur, including those in which an uncertain value is shared by part or all of a cohort, and then demonstrate how these sources of uncertainty arise in radiation dosimetry. We briefly describe the effects of different types of dosimetric uncertainty on risk estimates, followed by a description of each method of adjusting for the uncertainty.

conclusionsEach of the method has strengths and weaknesses, and some methods have limited applicability. We describe the types of uncertainty to which each method can be applied and its pros and cons. Finally, we provide summary recommendations and touch briefly on suggestions for further research.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageDose-Response Relationship, RadiationHumansModels, StatisticalRadiometryRisk AssessmentUncertaintyBerkson errorclassical errorDose error

Identifiers

PMID39058334
PMCPMC11421978

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.