On the choice of methodology for evaluating dose-rate effects on radiation-related cancer risks.

ABSTRACT

Recently, several compilations of individual radiation epidemiology study results have aimed to obtain direct evidence on the magnitudes of dose-rate effects on radiation-related cancer risks. These compilations have relied on meta-analyses of ratios of risks from low dose-rate studies and matched risks from the solid cancer Excess Relative Risk models fitted to the acutely exposed Japanese A-bomb cohort. The purpose here is to demonstrate how choices of methodology for evaluating dose-rate effects on radiation-related cancer risks may influence the results reported for dose-rate effects. The current analysis is intended to address methodological issues and does not imply that the authors recommend a particular value for the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor. A set of 22 results from one recent published study has been adopted here as a test set of data for applying the many different methods described here, that nearly all produced highly consistent results. Some recently voiced concerns, involving the recalling of the well-known theoretical point-the ratio of two normal random variables has a theoretically unbounded variance-that could potentially cause issues, are shown to be unfounded when aimed at the published work cited and examined in detail here. In the calculation of dose-rate effects for radiation protection purposes, it is recommended that meta-estimators should retain the full epidemiological and dosimetric matching information between the risks from the individual low dose-rate studies and the acutely exposed A-bomb cohort and that a regression approach can be considered as a useful alternative to current approaches.