Radiation exposure from diagnostic and therapeutic treatments and risk of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An association between low-dose diagnostic X-ray exposure or therapeutic radiation treatment and breast cancer risk has not been established. To further investigate the issue, we analysed data from a case-control study of breast cancer in Connecticut in 1994-1997. A total of 1217 subjects (608 breast cancer cases and 609 controls), 30-80 years old, participated in the study. A standardized, structured questionnaire was used to collect information through in-person interviews on diagnostic or therapeutic radiation and other breast cancer risk factors. An odds ratio (OR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-3.6) was observed for postmenopausal women with therapeutic radiation treatment for skin problems such as ringworm and acne, and an OR of 2.5 (95% CI 1.0-6.8) for those who reported having been treated six or more times. Radiation treatment received at younger ages seems to carry a higher risk. In earlier studies therapeutic radiation for skin problems has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Therefore, it is possible that scattered radiation from these treatments could increase the risk of breast cancer. Radiation exposure from diagnostic X-rays was not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".