Flexible Modeling of the Association Between Cumulative Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation From Cardiac Procedures and Risk of Cancer in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with congenital heart disease are increasingly being exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) from cardiac procedures. In a recent study, Cohen et al. (Circulation. 2018;137(13):1334-1345) reported an association between increased LDIR exposure and cancer incidence but did not explore temporal relationships. Yet, the impact of past exposures probably accumulates over years, and its strength may depend on the amount of time elapsed since exposure. Furthermore, LDIR procedures performed shortly before a cancer diagnosis may have been ordered because of early symptoms of cancer, raising concerns about reversal causality bias. To address these challenges, we combined flexible modeling of cumulative exposures with competing-risks methodology to estimate separate associations of time-varying LDIR exposure with cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. Among 24,833 patients from the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database, 602 had incident cancer and 500 died during a follow-up period of up to 15 years (1995-2010). Initial results suggested a strong association of cancer incidence with very recent LDIR exposures, likely reflecting reverse causality bias. When exposure was lagged by 2 years, an increased cumulative LDIR dose from the previous 2-6 years was associated with increased cancer incidence, with a stronger association for women. These results illustrate the importance of accurate modeling of temporal relationships between time-varying exposures and health outcomes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".