CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,172Effects of Radiation ExposureRadiation Dose and ImagingRadioactivity and Radon Measurements

Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997

Preston, Dale L., Shimizu, Yukiko, Pierce, Donald A., Suyama, Akihiko, Mabuchi, Kiyohiko·2003·Radiation Research
DOI 10.1667/rr3049
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This continues the series of general reports on mortality in the cohort of atomic bomb survivors followed up by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. This cohort includes 86,572 people with individual dose estimates, 60% of whom have doses of at least 5 mSv. We consider mortality for solid cancer and for noncancer diseases with 7 additional years of follow-up. There have been 9,335 deaths from solid cancer and 31,881 deaths from noncancer diseases during the 47-year follow-up. Of these, 19% of the solid cancer and 15% of the noncancer deaths occurred during the latest 7 years. We estimate that about 440 (5%) of the solid cancer deaths and 250 (0.8%) of the noncancer deaths were associated with the radiation exposure. The excess solid cancer risks appear to be linear in dose even for doses in the 0 to 150-mSv range. While excess rates for radiation-related cancers increase throughout the study period, a new finding is that relative risks decline with increasing attained age, as well as being highest for those exposed as children as noted previously. A useful representative value is that for those exposed at age 30 the solid cancer risk is elevated by 47% per sievert at age 70. There is no significant city difference in either the relative or absolute excess solid cancer risk. Site-specific analyses highlight the difficulties, and need for caution, in distinguishing between site-specific relative risks. These analyses also provide insight into the difficulties in interpretation and generalization of LSS estimates of age-at-exposure effects. The evidence for radiation effects on noncancer mortality remains strong, with risks elevated by about 14% per sievert during the last 30 years of follow-up. Statistically significant increases are seen for heart disease, stroke, digestive diseases, and respiratory diseases. The noncancer data are consistent with some non-linearity in the dose response owing to the substantial uncertainties in the data. There is no direct evidence of radiation effects for doses less than about 0.5 Sv. While there are no statistically significant variations in noncancer relative risks with age, age at exposure, or sex, the estimated effects are comparable to those seen for cancer. Lifetime risk summaries are used to examine uncertainties of the LSS noncancer disease findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1667/rr3049

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Epidemiological studies on atomic bomb survivors, radiotherapy patients and occupationally-exposed workers have characterized the association between moderate to high doses of low-LET radiation and the long-term development of degenerative tissue effects, such as heart disease, cataracts, immunological changes and premature aging.

    “Epidemiological studies on atomic bomb survivors in Japan, radiotherapy patients and occupationally-exposed workers have characterized the association between moderate to high doses of low-LET radiation and the long-term development of degenerative tissue effects, such as heart disease, cataracts, immunological changes and premature aging [17,18,19,20].”

    From Space Radiation: The number one risk to astronaut health beyond low earth orbit (2014) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Preston, D. L., Shimizu, Y., Pierce, D. A., Suyama, A., & Mabuchi, K.
Affiliations
Radiation Effects Research Foundation (JP)
Corresponding author
Preston, Dale L.
ORCID
Venue
Radiation Research
Publisher
Radiation Research Society
Published
2003-10
Volume
160
Issue
4
Pages
381-407
ISSN
  • 0033-7587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5404
DOI
10.1667/rr3049
OpenAlex
W2134258634
Cited by
1,172
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 102
FWCI
41.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiation Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
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 › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Radioactivity and Radon Measurements
Keywords
atomic bomb survivors, radiation-induced cancer, non-cancer mortality, solid cancer mortality, dose-response relationship, linear no-threshold model, age at exposure, heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, lifetime risk, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Japan, Leukemia, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Nuclear Warfare, Radiometry, Sex Factors, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Survivors, Topography, Medical

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