Heart Disease Mortality in the Life Span Study, 1950–2008
Abstract
Based on the findings from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation's studies of the cohort of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, it has been reported that total-body irradiation at 0.5-1.0 Gy could be responsible for increased rates of mortality from broad-based categories of cardiovascular disease (CVD), i.e., stroke and heart disease. However, CVD consists of various subtypes that have potentially different radiation dose responses, as well as subtype-specific risks that have not been fully evaluated. Potential problems with changes in the coding rules for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the underlying causes and trends in CVD mortality in Japan also need to be considered. The goal of this study was to clarify the radiation risk of subtype-specific heart disease over different time periods. Radiation dose response was examined for mortality from several heart disease subtypes in 86,600 members of the Life Span Study (LSS) cohort during 1950-2008. These subtypes included ischemic heart disease (IHD), valvular heart disease (VHD), hypertensive organ damage (HOD) and heart failure (HF). Individual radiation doses ranged between 0 and 4 Gy. In addition to analyses for the total period, we examined specific periods, 1950-1968, 1969-1980, 1981-1994 and 1995-2008, corresponding to major developments in medical technologies and ICD code revisions. We observed significant positive associations between radiation dose and mortality from heart disease overall in 1…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Circulatory risks from low dose radiation, including in Russian radiation workers and the LSS, suggest a no threshold dose response model for overall risks with differential results for the various components of the risk.
“Circulatory risks from low dose radiation including to those in Russian radiation workers (Little et al., 2012) and the LSS (Takahashi et al., 2017) suggest a no threshold dose response model for overall risks with differential results for the various components of the risk.”
From A proposed change to astronaut exposures limits is a giant leap backwards for radiation protection (2021) · cites this paper as Takahashi et al., 2017
The meta-analysis of Little et al. did not consider sex differences on RR estimates.
“however the meta-analysis of Little et al. (Takahashi et al., 2017) did not consider sex differences on RR estimates.”
From A proposed change to astronaut exposures limits is a giant leap backwards for radiation protection (2021) · cites this paper as Takahashi et al., 2017
Cites
Freeman, R. V., & Otto, C. M. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.104.486738 · Cited by 1,006 · see citing works
Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data
Naghavi, M., Makela, S., Foreman, K., O'Brien, J., Pourmalek, F., & Lozano, R. (2010) · Population Health Metrics · doi:10.1186/1478-7954-8-9 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Validity of myocardial infarction diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review.
McCormick, N., Lacaille, D., Bhole, V., & Avina-Zubieta, J. A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092286 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Kitamura, A., Sato, S., Kiyama, M., Imano, H., Iso, H., Okada, T., Ohira, T., Tanigawa, T., Yamagishi, K., Nakamura, M., et al. (2008) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.02.075 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A proposed change to astronaut exposures limits is a giant leap backwards for radiation protection
Cucinotta, F. A., Schimmerling, W., Blakely, E. A., & Hei, T. K. (2021) · Life Sciences in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2021.07.005 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
A bespoke health risk assessment methodology for the radiation protection of astronauts
Walsh, L., Hafner, L., Straube, U., Ulanowski, A., Fogtman, A., Durante, M., Weerts, G., & Schneider, U. (2021) · Radiation and Environmental Biophysics · doi:10.1007/s00411-021-00910-0 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Takahashi, I., Shimizu, Y., Grant, E. J., Cologne, J., Ozasa, K., & Kodama, K.
- Affiliations
- Radiation Effects Research Foundation (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Takahashi, Ikuno
- Venue
- Radiation Research
- Publisher
- Radiation Research Society
- Published
- 2017-02-07
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319
- ISSN
- 0033-7587 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2587088513
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 5.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Radiation Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Healthcare Systems and Public Health
- Keywords
- total body irradiation, atomic bomb survivors, Life Span Study, heart disease mortality, cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, hypertensive organ damage, heart failure, radiation dose-response, radiation risk, threshold dose, dose linearity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Radiation Injuries, Survivors, Risk Adjustment, Nuclear Weapons, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
