| Title |
Effect of follow-up period on minimal-significant dose in the atomic-bomb survivor studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00411-017-0720-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Cologne, Dale L. Preston, Eric J. Grant, Harry M. Cullings, Kotaro Ozasa |
| Abstract |
It was recently suggested that earlier reports on solid-cancer mortality and incidence in the Life Span Study of atomic-bomb survivors contain still-useful information about low-dose risk that should not be ignored, because longer follow-up may lead to attenuated estimates of low-dose risk due to longer time since exposure. Here it is demonstrated, through the use of all follow-up data and risk models stratified on period of follow-up (as opposed to sub-setting the data by follow-up period), that the appearance of risk attenuation over time may be the result of less-precise risk estimation-in particular, imprecise estimation of effect-modification parameters-in the earlier periods. Longer follow-up, in addition to allowing more-precise estimation of risk due to larger numbers of radiation-related cases, provides more-precise adjustment for background mortality or incidence and more-accurate assessment of risk modification by age at exposure and attained age. It is concluded that the latest follow-up data are most appropriate for inferring low-dose risk. Furthermore, if researchers are interested in effects of time since exposure, the most-recent follow-up data should be considered rather than the results of earlier reports. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 29% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 18% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,850,519
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#124
of 486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,593
of 447,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 447,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.