MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570515011 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-1011

No Association between Radiation Dose from Pediatric CT Scans and Risk of Subsequent Hodgkin Lymphoma

2017· article· en· W2570515011 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Berrington de González, Neige Journy, Choonsik Lee, Lindsay M. Morton, Richard Harbron, Douglas R. Stewart, Louise Parker, Alan Craft, Kieran McHugh, Mark P. Little, Mark S. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaCohortRetrospective cohort studyIonizing radiationHodgkin lymphomaNuclear medicineCancerPoisson regressionNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaRadiation therapyRadiologyOncologyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: We examined the relationship between estimated radiation dose from CT scans and subsequent Hodgkin lymphoma in the UK pediatric CT scans cohort. Methods: A retrospective, record linkage cohort included patients ages 0 to 21 years who underwent CT scans between 1980 and 2002 and were followed up for cancer or death until 2008. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between estimated radiation dose (lagged by 2 years) and incident Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosed at least 2 years after the first CT scan. Results: There were 65 incident cases of Hodgkin lymphoma in the cohort of 178,601 patients. Neither estimated red bone marrow dose nor mean lymphocyte dose from CT scans was clearly associated with an increased risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (RR for 20+ mGy vs. <5 mGy = 0.92 (0.38–2.22) Ptrend > 0.5 and 1.44 (0.60–3.48) Ptrend > 0.5), respectively. Conclusions: Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans 2 or more years before diagnosis was not associated with Hodgkin lymphoma in this large UK cohort. Impact: These findings are consistent with the majority of previous studies, which do not support a link between ionizing radiation and Hodgkin lymphoma. The results contrast our previous positive findings in this cohort for brain tumors and leukemia, both of which are known to be strongly linked to radiation exposure during childhood. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(5); 804–6. ©2017 AACR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207