Lung Cancer after Treatment for Hodgkin's Disease: Focus on Radiation Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gilbert, E. S., Stovall, M., Gospodarowicz, M., van Leeuwen, F. E., Andersson, M., Glimelius, B., Joensuu, T., Lynch, C. F., Curtis, R. E., Holowaty, E., Storm, H., Pukkala, E., van't Veer, M. B., Fraumeni, J. F., Jr., Boice, J. D., Jr., Clarke, E. A. and Travis, L. B. Lung Cancer after Treatment for Hodgkin's Disease: Focus on Radiation Effects. Radiat. Res. 159, 161–173 (2003).Aspects of radiation-induced lung cancer were evaluated in an international study of Hodgkin's disease. The study population consisted of 227 patients with lung cancer and 455 matched controls. Unique features included dose determinations to the specific location in the lung where each cancer developed and quantitative data on both chemotherapy and tobacco use obtained from medical records. The estimated excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.06–0.39), and there was little evidence of departure from linearity even though lung doses for the majority of Hodgkin's disease patients treated with radiotherapy exceeded 30 Gy. The interaction of radiation and chemotherapy that included alkylating agents was almost exactly additive, and a multiplicative relationship could be rejected (P = 0.017). Conversely, the interaction of radiation and smoking was consistent with a multiplicative relationship, but not with an additive relationship (P < 0.001). The ERR/Gy for males was about four times that for females, although the difference was not statistically significant. There was little evidence of modification of the ERR/Gy by time since exposure (after a 5-year minimum latent period), age at exposure, or attained age. Because of the very high radiation doses received by Hodgkin's disease patients and the immunodeficiency inherent to this lymphoma and that associated with chemotherapy, generalizing these findings to other populations receiving considerably lower doses of radiation should be done cautiously.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".