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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".