Ionizing Radiation and Risk of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the 15-Country Study of Nuclear Industry Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vrijheid, M., Cardis, E., Ashmore, P., Auvinen, A., Gilbert, E., Habib, R. R., Malker, H., Muirhead, C. R., Richardson, D. B., Rogel, A., Schubauer-Berigan, M., Tardy, H. and Telle-Lamberton, M., for the 15-Country Study Group. Ionizing Radiation and Risk of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the 15-Country Study of Nuclear Industry Workers. Radiat. Res. 170, 661–665 (2008).In contrast to other types of leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has long been regarded as non-radiogenic, i.e. not caused by ionizing radiation. However, the justification for this view has been challenged. We therefore report on the relationship between CLL mortality and external ionizing radiation dose within the 15-country nuclear workers cohort study. The analyses included, in seven countries with CLL deaths, a total of 295,963 workers with more than 4.5 million person-years of follow-up and an average cumulative bone marrow dose of 15 mSv; there were 65 CLL deaths in this cohort. The relative risk (RR) at an occupational dose of 100 mSv compared to 0 mSv was 0.84 (95% CI 0.39, 1.48) under the assumption of a 10-year exposure lag. Analyses of longer lag periods showed little variation in the RR, but they included very small numbers of cases with relatively high doses. In conclusion, the largest nuclear workers cohort study to date finds little evidence for an association between low doses of external ionizing radiation and CLL mortality. This study had little power due to low doses, short follow-up periods, and uncertainties in CLL ascertainment from death certificates; an extended follow-up of the cohorts is merited and would ideally include incident cancer cases.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".