LIFETIME LUNG CANCER RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INDOOR RADON EXPOSURE BASED ON VARIOUS RADON RISK MODELS FOR CANADIAN POPULATION
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study calculates and compares the lifetime lung cancer risks associated with indoor radon exposure based on well-known risk models in the literature; two risk models are from joint studies among miners and the other three models were developed from pooling studies on residential radon exposure from China, Europe and North America respectively. The aim of this article is to make clear that the various models are mathematical descriptions of epidemiologically observed real risks in different environmental settings. The risk from exposure to indoor radon is real and it is normal that variations could exist among different risk models even when they were applied to the same dataset. The results show that lifetime risk estimates vary significantly between the various risk models considered here: the model based on the European residential data provides the lowest risk estimates, while models based on the European miners and Chinese residential pooling with complete dosimetry give the highest values. The lifetime risk estimates based on the EPA/BEIR-VI model lie within this range and agree reasonably well with the averages of risk estimates from the five risk models considered in this study.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it