Analysis of Mortality among Canadian Nuclear Power Industry Workers after Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of radiation-associated risks among workers chronically exposed to low doses of radiation are important, both to estimate risks directly and to assess the adequacy of extrapolations of risk estimates from high-dose studies. This paper presents results based on a cohort of 45,468 nuclear power industry workers from the Canadian National Dose Registry monitored for more than 1 year for chronic low-dose whole-body ionizing radiation exposures sometime between 1957 and 1994 (mean duration of monitoring = 7.4 years, mean cumulative equivalent dose = 13.5 mSv). The excess relative risks for leukemia [excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)] and for all solid cancers were 52.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.205, 291] and 2.80 (95% CI: -0.038, 7.13) per sievert, respectively, both associations having P values close to 0.05. Relative risks by dose categories increased monotonically for leukemia excluding CLL but were less consistent for all solid cancers combined. Although the point estimates are higher than those found in other studies of whole-body irradiation, the difference could well be due to chance. Further follow-up of this cohort or the combination of results from multiple worker studies will produce more stable estimates and thus complement the risk estimates from higher-dose studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it