MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409518712 · doi:10.1177/15593258251329682

NCRP Claims Six Studies Support LNT But They Show No-Effect to At Least 100 mGy

2025· article· en· W4409518712 on OpenAlex
Ken Robert Chaplin

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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingMedicineRange (aeronautics)Nuclear medicineEconometricsMedical physicsEconomicsInternal medicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NCRP Commentary-27 reaffirmed Linear No Threshold (LNT) as the basis for radiation protection and listed six studies with "strong support" for LNT. This paper looks critically at these six studies and shows that they do not support LNT in the dose range of 0-100 mGy. These studies typically admit to no increase in cancer risk at significant dose levels. More importantly this paper shows that these studies assume LNT from the outset, underestimate uncertainty, ignore confounding factors, have biased control groups, and underestimate dose.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.329 · 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