MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041484967 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235658

Association of ionizing radiation dose from common medical diagnostic procedures and lymphoma risk in the Epilymph case-control study

2020· article· en· W3041484967 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Pasqual, Michelle C. Turner, Esther Gràcia‐Lavedan, Delphine Casabonne, Yolanda Benavente, Isabelle Thierry Chef, Marc Maynadié, Pierluigi Cocco, Anthony Staines, Lenka Foretová, Alexandra Nieters, Paolo Boffetta, Paul Brennan, Elisabeth Cardis, Sílvia de Sanjosé

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFifth Framework ProgrammeInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaConsejo de Seguridad NuclearDepartament de Salut, Generalitat de CatalunyaFondation de FranceBundesamt für StrahlenschutzMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineConfoundingOdds ratioLymphomaPopulationCase-control studyCumulative doseRelative riskInternal medicineEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical diagnostic X-rays are an important source of ionizing radiation (IR) exposure in the general population; however, it is unclear if the resulting low patient doses increase lymphoma risk. We examined the association between lifetime medical diagnostic X-ray dose and lymphoma risk, taking into account potential confounding factors, including medical history. The international Epilymph study (conducted in the Czech-Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Spain) collected self-reported information on common diagnostic X-ray procedures from 2,362 lymphoma cases and 2,465 frequency-matched (age, sex, country) controls. Individual lifetime cumulative bone marrow (BM) dose was estimated using time period-based dose estimates for different procedures and body parts. The association between categories of BM dose and lymphoma risk was examined using unconditional logistic regression models adjusting for matching factors, socioeconomic variables, and the presence of underlying medical conditions (atopic, autoimmune, infectious diseases, osteoarthritis, having had a sick childhood, and family history of lymphoma) as potential confounders of the association. Cumulative BM dose was low (median 2.25 mGy) and was not positively associated with lymphoma risk. Odds ratios (ORs) were consistently less than 1.0 in all dose categories compared to the reference category (less than 1 mGy). Results were similar after adjustment for potential confounding factors, when using different exposure scenarios, and in analyses by lymphoma subtype and by type of control (hospital-, population-based). Overall no increased risk of lymphoma was observed. The reduced ORs may be related to unmeasured confounding or other sources of systematic bias.We found little evidence that chronic medical conditions confound lymphoma risk and medical radiation associations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207