MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405651961 · doi:10.1177/15593258241303476

INWORKS and Hiroshima/Nagasaki Leukaemia Results

2024· article· en· W4405651961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDose-Response · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic myeloid leukaemiaMyeloid leukaemiaMedicineChildhood leukaemiaLeukemiaRadiation exposureNuclear medicineCumulative doseInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki (H/N) studies by the Radiation Effect Research Foundation have not shown increased leukaemia for acute doses below 200 milli-gray (mGy). By contrast the INWORKS study of leukaemia in workers stated: "This study provides strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukemia". The INWORKS study also claimed increased leukaemia, not including Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia, at cumulative occupational doses of less than 100 mGy. This is contrary to the expectation that the H/N studies would show more severe effects than the worker study because the doses were acute instead of chronic and because the H/N studies included children who had higher rates of radiation induced leukaemia than adults. This paper shows that the INWORKS leukaemia study is consistent with the H/N studies in showing no increase in leukaemia in the low-dose range. In addition, any increase in leukaemia is confined to Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia, possibly from high radiation dose-rates or chemicals.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.292 · 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