Estimation of Health Risks Associated With Occupational Radiation Exposure: Addressing Measurement Error and Minimum Detectable Exposure Level

Xue, Xiaonan; Kim, Mimi Y.; Shore, Roy E.

doi:10.1097/01.hp.0000225466.45659.08

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This variability can be attributed to a combination of variation in exposure levels over time and space. Advanced methodologies to acquire insight in the level of measurement variability on HOS outcomes have been proposed (Heederik and Miller 1988; Kromhout et al 1999; Loomis et al 1998; Xue et al 2006). Before the evaluation, risk assessors must define a minimum acceptable level of information required to assess whether enough insight in variability of exposure measurements is provided in HOS.…”

Section: Description Of the Framework And Evaluation Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Vlaanderen

Vermeulen

Heederik

et al. 2008

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCareful evaluation of the quality of human observational studies (HOS) is required to assess the suitability of HOS for quantitative risk assessment (QRA). In particular, the quality of quantitative exposure assessment is a crucial aspect of HOS to be considered for QRA.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop guidelines for the evaluation of HOS for QRA and to apply these guidelines to case–control and cohort studies on the relation between exposure to benzene and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).MethodsWe developed a three-tiered framework specific for the evaluation of HOS for QRA and used it to evaluate HOS on the relation between exposure to benzene and AML.ResultsThe developed framework consists of 20 evaluation criteria. A specific focus of the framework was on the quality of exposure assessment applied in HOS. Seven HOS on the relation of benzene and AML were eligible for evaluation. Of these studies, five were suitable for QRA and were ranked based on the quality of the study design, conduct, and reporting on the study.ConclusionThe developed guidelines facilitate a structured evaluation that is transparent in its application and harmonizes the evaluation of HOS for QRA. With the application of the guidelines, it was possible to identify studies suitable for QRA of benzene and AML and rank these studies based on their quality. Application of the guidelines in QRA will be a valuable addition to the assessment of the weight of evidence of HOS for QRA.

show abstract

Section: Description Of the Framework And Evaluation Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Vlaanderen

Vermeulen

Heederik

et al. 2008

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most significant approach to reducing the overall uncertainty associated with the Doses-2005 analysis would involve the minimization of uncertainty in the urine bioassay analyses. A similar discussion regarding the effect of random measurement error on relative risk estimation was presented by Xue et al (2006). Unfortunately, the uncertainty associated with the previously obtained experimental data cannot be changed.…”

Section: Basic Uncertainty In the Dosementioning

confidence: 63%

Uncertainties Analysis for the Plutonium Dosimetry Model, Doses-2005, Using Mayak Bioassay Data

Bess¹,

Krahenbuhl²,

Miller

et al. 2007

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Doses-2005 model is a combination of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) models modified using data from the Mayak Production Association cohort. Surrogate doses from inhaled plutonium can be assigned to approximately 29% of the Mayak workers using their urine bioassay measurements and other history records. The purpose of this study was to quantify and qualify the uncertainties in the estimates for radiation doses calculated with the Doses-2005 model by using Monte Carlo methods and perturbation theory. The average uncertainty in the yearly dose estimates for most organs was approximately 100% regardless of the transportability classification. The relative source of the uncertainties comes from three main sources: 45% from the urine bioassay measurements, 29% from the Doses-2005 model parameters, and 26% from the reference masses for the organs. The most significant reduction in the overall dose uncertainties would result from improved methods in bioassay measurement with additional improvements generated through further model refinement. Additional uncertainties were determined for dose estimates resulting from changes in the transportability classification and the smoking toggle. A comparison was performed to determine the effect of using the model with data from either urine bioassay or autopsy data; no direct correlation could be established. Analysis of the model using autopsy data and incorporation of results from other research efforts that have utilized plutonium ICRP models could improve the Doses-2005 model and reduce the overall uncertainty in the dose estimates.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the risk reported in epidemiologic studies would be biased when the doses are only assessed based on the reported NDR doses, especially among irregular badge wearers. The underestimated doses caused by censoring of minimum detection limit doses resulted in the overestimation of the radiation exposure risk in the Canadian occupational radiation workers [ 13 ], while the risk for all-cause mortality in the United States (US) Oak Ridge National Laboratory radiation workers was not significantly altered after taking into consideration the random measurement error and missed doses due to falling below the minimum detection level [ 14 ]. The estimates of external radiation dose obtained from personal dosimeters have several quantifying sources of errors [ 15 ]; therefore, its influence on risk estimation could vary at different levels of exposure underestimation and needs to be evaluated in each epidemiological study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Underestimation of Radiation Doses by Compliance of Wearing Dosimeters among Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Workers in Korea

Lee

Jang

Kim

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to estimate the level of underestimation of National Dose Registry (NDR) doses based on the workers’ dosimeter wearing compliance. In 2021, a nationwide survey of Korean medical radiation workers was conducted. A total of 989 medical workers who performed fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures participated, and their NDR was compared with the adjusted doses by multiplying the correction factors based on the individual level of dosimeter compliance from the questionnaire. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors for low dosimeter wearing. Based on the data from the NDR, the average annual effective radiation dose was 0.95 mSv, while the compliance-adjusted dose was 1.79 mSv, yielding an 89% increase. The risks for low compliance with wearing a badge were significantly higher among doctors, professionals other than radiologists or cardiologists, workers not frequently involved in performing fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures, and workers who did not frequently wear protective devices. This study provided quantitative information demonstrating that the NDR data may have underestimated the actual occupational radiation exposure. The underestimation of NDR doses may lead to biased risk estimates in epidemiological studies for radiation workers, and considerable attention on dosimetry wearing compliance is required to interpret and utilize NDR data.

show abstract

Estimation of Health Risks Associated With Occupational Radiation Exposure: Addressing Measurement Error and Minimum Detectable Exposure Level

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Uncertainties Analysis for the Plutonium Dosimetry Model, Doses-2005, Using Mayak Bioassay Data

Underestimation of Radiation Doses by Compliance of Wearing Dosimeters among Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Workers in Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About