Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation From Cardiac Procedures and Malignancy Risk in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are exposed to increasing amounts of low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) from cardiac procedures. Cancer prevalence in this population is higher than in the general population. This study estimates the association between LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures and incident cancer in adult patients with CHD. METHODS: The study population derived from the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database. We measured cumulative numbers of LDIR-related cardiac procedures for each patient until 1 year before the time of cancer diagnosis or administrative censoring. To assess the association between LDIR exposure and cancer risk, we conducted a nested case-control study and matched cancer cases with controls on sex, CHD severity, birth year, and age. RESULTS: <0.0001). Cumulative LDIR exposure was independently associated with cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.08 per procedure; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13). Similar results were obtained by using dose estimates for LDIR exposure (OR, 1.10 per 10 mSv; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15) with a possible dose-related response. The effect measure was in the same direction, and the association was persistent for exposure from ≥6 procedures in all sensitivity analyses: after excluding most smoking-related cancer cases (OR, 1.10 per procedure; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16 and OR when exposure from ≥6 procedures, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.77-5.37), and after applying a 3-year lag period (OR, 1.09 per procedure; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14 and OR when exposure from ≥6 procedures: 2.58; 95% CI, 1.43-4.69). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first large population-based study to analyze and document the association between LDIR-related cardiac procedures and incident cancer in the population of adults with CHD. Confirmations of these findings by prospective studies are needed to reinforce policy recommendations for radiation surveillance in patients with CHD where no regulation currently exists. Physicians ordering and performing cardiac imaging should ensure that exposure is as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality of care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".