« Previous
Next »
Annals of the ICRP
Volume 35, Issue 4
, Pages
1-39
, December 2005
Contents, preface, executive summary, chapters 1 and 2
-
Dose-specific excess relative risk of solid cancer among atomic bomb survivors, 1958–1987, by interval of neutron-weighted, estimated radiation dose to the colon. Fitted dose–response functions corres
Dose-specific excess relative risk of solid cancer among atomic bomb survivors, 1958–1987, by interval of neutron-weighted, estimated radiation dose to the colon. Fitted dose–response functions correspond to statistical tests of increasing trend according to the linear (relative risk
=
1
+
αD) and log-linear [relative risk
=
exp(βD)] dose–response models. The baseline risk is adjusted for city of exposure (Hiroshima or Nagasaki), sex, and 5-year intervals of exposure age and age at observation for risk, using a saturated model. -
General dose–response model, excess relative risk (ERR)(D)=αD×(1+βD)×exp(–γD−δD2), fit to the dose–response data of Fig. 2.1, and linear dose–response model, ERR(D)=αD, fit to the data subset restrictGeneral dose–response model, excess relative risk (ERR)(D)
=
αD
×
(1
+
βD)
×
exp(–γD−δD2), fit to the dose–response data of Fig. 2.1, and linear dose–response model, ERR(D)
=
αD, fit to the data subset restricted to radiation doses between 0 and 2 Sv. Details of the parameter estimates are given in Table 2.2. ERR, excess relative risk. -
Estimated low-dose relative risks. Dose-specific cancer rates over the 1958—1994 follow-up period relative to those for an otherwise similar exposed person, averaged over the follow-up, for sex, and fEstimated low-dose relative risks. Dose-specific cancer rates over the 1958—1994 follow-up period relative to those for an otherwise similar exposed person, averaged over the follow-up, for sex, and for 30 years of age at exposure. The dotted lines represent 1 standard error limits for the smoothed curve. The straight line is the estimated linear dose–response relationship for 0–2 Sv (see inset). The unity baseline corresponds to zero-dose survivors exposed within 3 km of the bombs. The horizontal dotted line represents the alternative baseline if survivors exposed beyond 3 km had been included. Source: Pierce, D.A., Preston, D.L., 2000. Radiat. Res. 154, 178–186.
-
Linear regression estimates of the excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy (points and connecting line, with error bounds of ± one standard error) for solid cancer incidence, based on Poisson regression oveLinear regression estimates of the excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy (points and connecting line, with error bounds of ± one standard error) for solid cancer incidence, based on Poisson regression over dose intervals of differing ranges from zero to the horizontal co-ordinate of the plotted point. The analysis is limited to proximal survivors exposed at distances under 3 km.
-
Linear regression estimates of the excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy (points and connecting line, with error bounds of ± one standard error) for solid cancer incidence, based on Poisson regression oveLinear regression estimates of the excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy (points and connecting line, with error bounds of ± one standard error) for solid cancer incidence, based on Poisson regression over dose intervals of differing ranges from zero to the horizontal co-ordinate of the plotted point. The analysis is based on all exposed survivors with estimated radiation doses less than 2 Gy.
-
All-age linear regression estimates of excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy for female breast cancer assuming a 12-year minimum latent period, with dose-specific data trimmed from the right. Horizontal pAll-age linear regression estimates of excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy for female breast cancer assuming a 12-year minimum latent period, with dose-specific data trimmed from the right. Horizontal placement corresponds to the mean breast tissue dose for the highest neutron-weighted kerma interval included in the regression. Thus, the rightmost point corresponds to the full dose range, the next point to the left to doses under 4 Gy, the next to doses under 3 Gy, and so on.
PII: S0146-6453(05)00048-5
doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2005.11.002
« Previous
Next »
Annals of the ICRP
Volume 35, Issue 4
, Pages
1-39
, December 2005
