Is the Radon Risk Overestimated? Neglected Doses in the Estimation of the Risk of Lung Cancer in Uranium Underground Miners
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
Only the exposure to inhaled radon decay products is usually taken into account in the determination of the risk of radiogenic lung cancer in uranium miners. However, the elevated lung cancer risk in uranium miners is due to the total dose of radiation received by that organ, not to the dose from inhaled radon-222 decay products (222Rn D.P.) alone. Lung doses from sources other than 222Rn D.P. may reach 25% to 75% of total effective dose, absorbed dose or equivalent lung dose, are correlated to 222Rn D.P. doses and are quite variable between facilities. Therefore, to neglect these doses leads to a systematic overestimation of the risk of lung cancer per unit 222Rn D.P. exposure, both through dose underestimation and dose misclassification. Correction for neglected doses and dose misclassification would pull the risk per unit radon exposure downward by a factor of at least two or three and bring the overall dose-effect relationship towards the no-effect null hypothesis, thereby increasing the likelihood of thresholds for lung cancer risk at indoor and today's uranium mine exposures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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