ArticleScientific reports2024
A note on potential gains in precision of radiation risk estimates from joint analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent evolution of risk analyses in atomic bomb survivor studies: new methods and applications.Carcinogenesis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In estimating radiation-related risk of cancer and other diseases based on the RERF Life Span Study (LSS), joint analyses can be performed where multiple health outcome endpoints are combined in the same model, allowing some parameters to be estimated in common among all endpoints with possible increase in precision of radiation risk and other model parameter estimates. Using as a basis excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models of the type commonly used in analysis of LSS data at RERF, we use maximum likelihood theory to compute the asymptotic relative standard error of endpoint-specific radiation effect and other parameter estimates using joint analyses as compared to traditional independent analysis. We show that some gains in precision of endpoint-specific radiation risk parameter estimates can be achieved by sharing effect modifier and other model parameters, but only small or negligible gains in precision are achieved for endpoint-specific background modifying or effect modifying parameters when other model parameters are shared. The magnitude of the precision gain for radiation risk estimates depends on the number of endpoints, the baseline incidence rate of the endpoint, and the type of model being used.
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.