MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155257220 · doi:10.1080/00397910500360202

Biologically Based Analysis of Lung Cancer Incidence in a Large Canadian Occupational Cohort with Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure, and Comparison with Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors

2006· article· en· W2155257220 on OpenAlexaffabout
William D. Hazelton, Suresh H. Moolgavkar, Stanley B. Curtis, Jan M. Zielinski, J. P. Ashmore, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMedicineCohortLung cancerIonizing radiationIncidence (geometry)DosimetryNuclear medicineDemographyOncologyInternal medicineIrradiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung cancer incidence is analyzed in a large Canadian National Dose Registry (CNDR) cohort with individual annual dosimetry for low-dose occupational exposure to gamma and tritium radiation using the two-stage clonal expansion model (TSCE) and extensions of the model with up to 10 initiation steps. Models with clonal expansion turned off provide very poor fits and are rejected. Characteristic and distinct temporal patterns of excess relative risk (ERR) are found for dose response affecting early, middle, or late stages of carcinogenesis, that is, initiation with one or more stages, clonal expansion, or malignant conversion. Both fixed lag and lag distributions are used to model time from first malignant cell to incidence. Background rates are adjusted for gender and birth cohort. Lacking individual smoking data, surrogate annual smoking doses based on U.S. annual per capita cigarette consumption appear to account for much of the birth cohort effect, leaving radiation dose response relatively unchanged. The mean cumulative exposure for males receiving nonzero cumulative doses of gamma and tritium radiation was 18.2 mSv. The males have a significant dose response with 33 out of a total of 322 lung cancer cases attributable to radiation. There were 78 incident lung cancer among females, (with mean cumulative exposure of 3.8 mSv among females with nonzero exposure). The dose response for females appears smaller than for males but does not differ significantly from zero or from the male dose response. Findings for males include significant dose-response relationships for promotion and malignant conversion, but not initiation, and a protraction effect (sometimes called an inverse-dose-rate effect, where risk increases with protraction of a given dose). The dose response predicted by our analysis appears consistent with the risk for lung cancer incidence in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors cohort, provided that proper adjustments are made for duration of exposure and differences in background rate parameters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207