Melanoma and Ionizing Radiation: Is There a Causal Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review was initiated in response to concerns that ionizing radiation could be a cause of melanoma. Studies presenting the relative risks for melanoma after external ionizing radiation exposure were in seven categories: (1) The Canadian Radiation Dose Registry, (2) nuclear industry workers, (3) subjects near nuclear test blasts, (4) survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan, (5) airline pilots and cabin attendants, (6) recipients of medical radiation, and (7) radiological technicians. Relative risks for leukemia in each of the studies were used to confirm the likelihood of exposure to ionizing radiation. When studies within a category were compatible, meta-analytic methods were used to obtain combined estimates of the relative risk, and a meta-regression analysis of melanoma relative risk compared to leukemia relative risk was used to examine consistency across exposure categories. Generally, exposure categories with elevated relative risks of leukemia had proportionately elevated relative risks of melanoma. This suggests that people exposed to ionizing radiation may be at increased risk of developing melanoma, although alternative explanations are possible. Future epidemiological studies of ionizing radiation effects should include melanoma as an outcome of interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".