ArticleRadiation research2025
Cancer Mortality after Protracted Low-level Radiation Exposure for Early and Contemporary Workers in Two Large Occupational Cohorts in the U.S. Million Person Study.
Article in Radiation research, 2025. 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.
- Cardiovascular risks and hazards associated with deep space exploration.Communications medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
An evaluation is presented of differences in radiation-related solid cancer mortality risk for early versus contemporary sub-groups of radiation workers in both of the two constituent Million Person Study (MPS) cohorts. The two previously analyzed MPS cohorts are 123,401 industrial radiographers monitored from 1939-2011 and followed through 2019 and 135,193 nuclear power plant workers monitored from 1957-1984 and followed through 2011. The rationale behind this extended new analysis is to investigate if these two MPS cohorts support recently published increased risks for contemporary workers in a different cohort, The International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) with pooled U.S., French and UK nuclear worker data, particularly for the U.S. component. The US-INWORKS contributed about one-third of the workers to the full-INWORKS study based on 309,932 workers. For all solid cancer mortality, the US-INWORKS study reported a low and non-significant excess relative risk (ERR) per Sv cumulative equivalent dose for the whole cohort of 0.19 (95% CI: -0.10; 0.52), whereas for contemporary workers the ERR per Sv was 2.23 (95% CI: 1.13, 3.49), approximately 10 times higher than the entire US-INWORKS cohort. The risk for the full INWORKS cohort was 0.52 (90% CI: 0.27; 0.77) per Gy colon dose whereas, for contemporary workers, the risk was 1.44 (90% CI: 0.65, 2.32), nearly 3 times higher. These risks for contemporary workers are both larger than risks informing radiation protection and much higher (7.0 and 4.5 times) than the Japanese A-bomb survivor's risk for males exposed acutely between the ages of 20 and 60 years of 0.32 (95% CI: 0.01; 0.50). Limitations include missing information on organ doses from radionuclide intake, neutrons and the absence of adjustment for non-radiation risk factors (notably asbestos exposure). The analysis of the MPS cohorts addresses these dosimetric- and asbestos-related limitations. For all solid cancer mortality, industrial radiographers showed equal Poisson ERRs per 100 mGy colon dose for early and contemporary workers: 0.06 (95% CI: 0.00; 0.12) and 0.07 (95% CI: 0.01; 0.13), respectively. The results for nuclear power plant workers were 0.10 (95% CI: -0.09; 0.29) and 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02; 0.06), respectively. It appears premature to conclude that there is generally a difference in excess risk between early and contemporary workers from radiation exposures.
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.