Health effects of radon: A review of the literature
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
PURPOSE: Radon is natural radioactive noble gas that can be found in soil, water, outdoor and indoor air. Exposure to radon accounts for more that 50% of the annual effective dose of natural radioactivity. The purpose of the current review is to summarize recent literature and evaluate the weight of evidence on the adverse health effects of radon. CONCLUSIONS: Radon is an established human lung carcinogen based on human epidemiological data supported by experimental evidence of mutagenesis studies in cell culture and laboratory animals. Extrapolation from cohort studies on miners suggested that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer death after tobacco smoke. The majority of studies on the relationship between radon and other types of cancers showed weak or no association. Low levels of radon can be found in drinking water; however, radon released during water usage adds small quantities to indoor radon concentration. Studies showed that the risk of stomach cancer and other gastrointestinal malignancies from radon in drinking water is small. Studies of the genetic and cytogenetic effects of indoor radon yielded equivocal results; while radon exposure in miners induces gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations. Numerous in vitro cytogenetic studies demonstrated that radon induces different types of genetic and cytogenetic damage that is likely to play a role in radon lung carcinogenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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