Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and Risk of Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of people living with dementia is rising globally as life expectancy increases. Dementia is a multifactorial disease. Due to the ubiquity of radiation exposure in medical and occupational settings, the potential association between radiation and dementia, and its subtypes (Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease), is of particular importance. There has also been an increased interest in studying radiation induced dementia risks in connection with the long-term manned space travel proposed by The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Our aim was to systematically review the literature on this topic, and use meta-analysis to generate a summary measure of association, assess publication bias and explore sources of heterogeneity across studies. We identified five types of exposed populations for this review: 1. survivors of atomic bombings in Japan; 2. patients treated with radiation therapy for cancer or other diseases; 3. occupationally exposed workers; 4. those exposed to environmental radiation; and 5. patients exposed to radiation from diagnostic radiation imaging procedures. We included studies that considered incident or mortality outcomes for dementia and its subtypes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the published literature indexed in PubMed between 2001 and 2022. We then abstracted the relevant articles, conducted a risk-of-bias assessment, and fit random effects models using the published risk estimates. After we applied our eligibility criteria, 18 studies were identified for review and retained for meta-analysis. For dementia (all subtypes), the summary relative risk was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.18; P = 0.001) comparing individuals receiving 100 mSv of radiation to those with no exposure. The corresponding summary relative risk for Parkinson's disease incidence and mortality was 1.12 (95% CI 1.07, 1.17; P <0.001). Our results provide evidence that exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of dementia. However, our findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included studies. Longitudinal studies with improved exposure characterization, incident outcomes, larger sample size, and the ability to adjust for effects of potential confounders are needed to better assess the possible causal link between ionizing radiation and dementia.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".