↓ Skip to main content

Screening effects in risk studies of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Screening effects in risk studies of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident
Published in
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, February 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00411-009-0211-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Christian Kaiser, P. Jacob, M. Blettner, S. Vavilov

Abstract

In this article scenarios have been developed, which simulate screening effects in ecological and cohort studies of thyroid cancer incidence among Ukrainians, whose thyroids have been exposed to (131)I in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. If possible, the scenarios were based on directly observed data, such as the population size, dose distributions and thyroid cancer cases. Two scenarios were considered where the screening effect on baseline cases is either equal to or larger than that of radiation-related thyroid cancer cases. For ecological studies in settlements with more than ten measurements of the (131)I activity in the human thyroid in May-June 1986, the screening bias appeared small (<19%) for all risk quantities. In the cohort studies, the excess absolute risk per dose was larger by a factor of 4 than in the general population. For an equal screening effect on baseline and radiation-related cancer (Scenario 1) the excess relative risk was about the same as in the general population. However, a differential screening effect (Scenario 2) produced a risk smaller by a factor of 2.5. A comparison with first results of the Ukrainian-US-American cohort study did not give any indication that a differential screening effect has a marked influence on the risk estimates. The differences in the risk estimates from ecological studies and cohort studies were explained by the different screening patterns in the general population and in the much smaller cohort. The present investigations are characterized by dose estimates for many settlements which are very weakly correlated with screening, the confounding variable. The results show that under these conditions ecological studies may provide risk estimates with an acceptable bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Professor 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 29%
Environmental Science 4 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,065,859
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#311
of 456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,563
of 176,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.