MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parental exposure to medical radiation and neuroblastoma in offspring

2004· article· en· W1971574673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tara Patton, Andrew F. Olshan, Joseph P. Neglia, Robert P. Castleberry, Joanna Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineOffspringOdds ratioConfidence intervalPregnancyIncidence (geometry)Radiation exposureNeuroblastomaPediatricsDemographyObstetricsInternal medicineNuclear medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested an association between parental medical radiation exposure and increased incidence of certain childhood cancers. We investigated the relationship between medical radiation and risk of neuroblastoma in offspring using data from a North American case-control study. Cases were children diagnosed with neuroblastoma from 1 May 1992, to 30 April 1994, at Children's Cancer Group and Pediatric Oncology Group institutions throughout the United States and Canada. One matched control per case was selected using random-digit dialling. Telephone interviews were conducted with parents to collect data on any medical radiation examinations and treatments in the 2 years before conception or during pregnancy. We included 500 maternal and 339 paternal matched pairs. Overall, no association was found between maternal exposure to radiation and neuroblastoma risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7, 1.3). Analysis of maternal exposure by specific anatomical site showed no association for gonadal sites [OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.5, 2.0]. Little association was found with paternal radiation exposure [OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.8, 1.8]. No consistent exposure-response gradient was found based upon the number of maternal or paternal medical radiation examinations. The data presented here, coupled with the lower radiation doses currently used, indicate that any further study of this question will require larger studies with improved exposure assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatric and Perinatal EpidemiologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207