Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Recent Changes in Atomic Bomb Survivor Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates

Preston, Dale L., Pierce, Donald A., Shimizu, Yukiko, Cullings, Harry M., Fujita, Shoichiro, Funamoto, Sachiyo, Kodama, Kazunori·2004·Radiation Research

Abstract

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation has recently implemented a new dosimetry system, DS02, to replace the previous system, DS86. This paper assesses the effect of the change on risk estimates for radiation-related solid cancer and leukemia mortality. The changes in dose estimates were smaller than many had anticipated, with the primary systematic change being an increase of about 10% in gamma-ray estimates for both cities. In particular, an anticipated large increase of the neutron component in Hiroshima for low-dose survivors did not materialize. However, DS02 improves on DS86 in many details, including the specifics of the radiation released by the bombs and the effects of shielding by structures and terrain. The data used here extend the last reported follow-up for solid cancers by 3 years, with a total of 10,085 deaths, and extends the follow-up for leukemia by 10 years, with a total of 296 deaths. For both solid cancer and leukemia, estimated age-time patterns and sex difference are virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision. The estimates of solid-cancer radiation risk per sievert and the curvilinear dose response for leukemia are both decreased by about 8% by the dosimetry revision, due to the increase in the gamma-ray dose estimates. The apparent shape of the dose response is virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision, but for solid cancers, the additional 3 years of follow-up has some effect. In particular, there is for the first time a statistically significant upward curvature for solid cancer on the restricted dose range 0-2 Sv. However, the low-dose slope of a linear-quadratic fit to that dose range should probably not be relied on for risk estimation, since that is substantially smaller than the linear slopes on ranges 0-1 Sv, 0-0.5 Sv, and 0- 0.25 Sv. Although it was anticipated that the new dosimetry system might reduce some apparent dose overestimates for Nagasaki factory workers, this did not materialize, and factory workers have significantly lower risk estimates. Whether or not one makes allowance for this, there is no statistically significant city difference in the estimated cancer risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1667/rr3232

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Preston, D. L., Pierce, D. A., Shimizu, Y., Cullings, H. M., Fujita, S., Funamoto, S., & Kodama, K.
Venue
Radiation Research
Published
2004-10
Volume
162
Issue
4
Pages
377-389
ISSN
  • 0033-7587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5404
OpenAlex
W2154438710
Cited by
432
References
15
FWCI
17.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.