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 OpenAlexaff
Ken Robert Chaplin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.263
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.263
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0190.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDose-ResponseSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207