Managing lung cancer risks associated with residential radon exposure in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The weight of current evidence supports a small yet significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to radon in the home. Our study provides an economic evaluation of five national strategies to mitigate residential radon exposure. Analysis is based upon a probabilistic decision model which estimates the time-dependent reductions in age, gender and smoking-specific lung cancer risks following mitigation, and models the impact within simulated Canadian population over 80 years. The estimated costs of the radon programs are compared with these impacts to calculate the cost-effectiveness of residential radon mitigation. All strategies considered were found to be very expensive, with total costs ranging from about $100 million to several billions of dollars. The more expensive mitigation strategies also tended to be the most cost-effective. In the majority of cases, the strategy with the lowest cost per lung cancer prevented was universal screening of all currently existing dwellings, with mitigation of dwellings above some action level. The cost-effectiveness of radon mitigation was improved by lowering the Canadian radon guideline from its current level of 800 Bqm-3; by maximizing the compliance of homeowners with the recommended action; by maximizing the degree to which radon levels are reduced within mitigated dwellings; and by targeting radon mitigation towards geographic areas with higher average radon concentrations. The implications of our findings are discussed within the context of risk management decision making in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".