Prenatal radiation exposure

Gök, Mustafa; Bozkurt, Murat; Güneyli, Serkan; Bozkurt, Duygu Kara; Korkmaz, Mehmet; Peker, Nuri

doi:10.17077/2154-4751.1279

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also shown in Table 4 are estimates of interactions between the overall radiation dose–response slope and smoking, sex, or trimester of exposure. A main effect of trimester was not included when the trimester–radiation interaction was assessed, and the third trimester was used as the reference group because radiation effects during in utero exposure are most pronounced during the early stages of gestation (Gök et al 2015 ). To reduce clutter, estimates of the three city-distance parameters are not shown as these are not the focus of the analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the precise date of conception is unknown, we use mother’s age at the time of the bombing as a surrogate, since all conceptions of in utero-exposed survivors must have occurred less than one year before the bombing. Trimester at the time of bombing was considered because it is potentially associated with dramatic changes in the environment and lifestyle directly associated with the bombing and because radiation exposure can be detrimental in early gestation (Gök et al 2015 ). Terms can also be added for variables that might interact with radiation by including cross-products of dose with those variables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chromosome aberrations among atomic-bomb survivors exposed in utero: updated analysis accounting for revised radiation doses and smoking

Cologne

Sugiyama

Hamasaki

et al. 2022

Radiat Environ Biophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous study of peripheral blood lymphocyte translocations around age 40 among atomic-bomb survivors exposed in utero revealed no overall association with radiation dose—despite a clear association between translocations and dose among their mothers—but the data suggested an increase at doses below 100 mGy with a definite peak. That analysis of the in utero-exposed survivors did not adjust for their subsequent smoking behavior, an established cause of chromosomal aberrations, or their subsequent exposures to medical irradiation, a potential mediator. In addition, atomic-bomb survivor radiation dose estimates have subsequently been updated and refined. We therefore re-estimated the dose response using the latest DS02R1 dose estimates and adjusting for smoking as well as for city and proximal–distal location at the time of exposure to the atomic bomb. Sex of the survivor, mother’s age around the time of conception, and approximate trimester of gestation at the time of exposure were also considered as explanatory variables and modifiers. Precision of the estimated dose response was slightly lower due to greater variability near zero in the updated dose estimates, but there was little change in evidence of a low-dose increase and still no suggestion of an overall increase across the entire dose range. Adjustment for smoking behavior led to a decline in background number of translocations (the dose–response intercept), but smoking did not interact with dose overall (across the entire dose range). Adjustment for medical irradiation did not alter the association between dose and translocation frequency. Sex, mother’s age, and trimester were not associated with number of translocations, nor did they interact with dose overall. Interactions with dose in the low-dose range could not be evaluated because of numerical instability.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%