ArticleJournal of radiation research2026
Methodological considerations on the estimation of non-initial radiation effects among Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors: a commentary on Ohtaki et al. (2025).
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent study by Ohtaki et al. (Frontiers in Public Health, 2025) proposed that non-initial (residual) radiation contributed substantially to solid cancer mortality among Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors, estimating residual radiation doses exceeding 2 Sv in areas west of the hypocenter. This commentary examines four methodological considerations relevant to interpreting these findings. First, the study infers residual radiation dose from the same excess relative risk (ERR) used to assess cancer risk-a form of circular reasoning that precludes independent validation of the dose-response relationship. Second, the attribution of geographically asymmetric cancer mortality to a specific exposure mechanism is difficult to substantiate without individual-level data on potential confounders; a simple sensitivity analysis suggests that modest non-zero ERR in the assumed control region could substantially reduce the reported excess. Third, the cohort entry criterion of confirmed Hiroshima residency in 1970, approximately 25 years post-bombing, may introduce survivor and migration bias. Fourth, sex-differential behavioral factors following the bombing may confound the interpretation of sex-specific ERR estimates. These considerations do not negate the importance of the research question but suggest that the magnitude of residual radiation effects proposed by Ohtaki et al. warrants careful evaluation. Independent dosimetry and individual-level data are needed to clarify the role of residual radiation in long-term health outcomes among atomic bomb survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479822What 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.