ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2025
Comparing dose response of cancer incidence in Sweden after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident with Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Follow-up of the atomic bomb survivors in Japan in the Life Span Study (LSS) has been fundamental for the understanding of the dose-response curve. We compare our risk estimates from a newly published epidemiological study on cancer in Sweden after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident with the LSS data. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for rural/nonrural habitat, education level, and pre-Chernobyl cancer incidence from 1980 to 1985, respectively. Adjusted HRs by sex were calculated in deciles for all cancer sites combined for 1986 to 2020. These risk estimates were translated to excess relative risk (ERR) to allow comparison with LSS incidence data. ERRs per decile were compatible with ERR in the low-dose range <100 mGy for both sexes. The CIs in each decile need to be taken into account when interpreting the dose-response curve. Risk estimates in dose categories add important information at very low doses on the dose-response curve when compared to LSS data.
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.