In epidemiologic studies, total energy intake is often related to disease risk because of associations between physical activity or body size and the probability of disease. In theory, differences in disease incidence may also be related to metabolic efficiency and therefore to total energy intake. Because intakes of most specific nutrients, particularly macronutrients, are correlated with total energy intake, they may be noncausally associated with disease as a result of confounding by total energy intake. In addition, extraneous variation in nutrient intake resulting from variation in total energy intake that is unrelated to disease risk may weaken associations. Furthermore, individuals or populations must alter their intake of specific nutrients primarily by altering the composition of their diets rather than by changing their total energy intake, unless physical activity or body weight are changed substantially. Thus, adjustment for total energy intake is usually appropriate in epidemiologic studies to control for confounding, reduce extraneous variation, and predict the effect of dietary interventions. Failure to account for total energy intake can obscure associations between nutrient intakes and disease risk or even reverse the direction of association. Several disease-risk models and formulations of these models are available to account for energy intake in epidemiologic analyses, including adjustment of nutrient intakes for total energy intake by regression analysis and addition of total energy to a model with the nutrient density (nutrient divided by energy).
Objectives To provide direct estimates of risk of cancer after protracted low doses of ionising radiation and to strengthen the scientific basis of radiation protection standards for environmental, occupational, and medical diagnostic exposures. Design Multinational retrospective cohort study of cancer mortality. Setting Cohorts of workers in the nuclear industry in 15 countries. Participants 407 391 workers individually monitored for external radiation with a total follow-up of 5.2 million person years. Main outcome measurements Estimates of excess relative risks per sievert (Sv) of radiation dose for mortality from cancers other than leukaemia and from leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, the main causes of death considered by radiation protection authorities. Results The excess relative risk for cancers other than leukaemia was 0.97 per Sv, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.97. Analyses of causes of death related or unrelated to smoking indicate that, although confounding by smoking may be present, it is unlikely to explain all of this increased risk. The excess relative risk for leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was 1.93 per Sv ( < 0 to 8.47). On the basis of these estimates, 1-2% of deaths from cancer among workers in this cohort may be attributable to radiation. Conclusions These estimates, from the largest study of nuclear workers ever conducted, are higher than, but statistically compatible with, the risk estimates used for current radiation protection standards. The results suggest that there is a small excess risk of cancer, even at the low doses and dose rates typically received by nuclear workers in this study.
Studies of the mortality among nuclear industry workforces have been carried out, and nationally combined analyses performed, in the U.S., the UK and Canada. This paper presents the results of internationally combined analyses of mortality data on 95,673 workers (85.4% men) monitored for external exposure to ionizing radiation and employed for 6 months or longer in the nuclear industry of one of the three countries. These analyses were undertaken to obtain a more precise direct assessment of the carcinogenic effects of protracted low-level exposure to external, predominantly gamma, radiation. The combination of the data from the various studies increases the power to study associations between radiation and specific cancers. The combined analyses covered a total of 2,124,526 person-years (PY) at risk and 15,825 deaths, 3,976 of which were due to cancer. There was no evidence of an association between radiation dose and mortality from all causes or from all cancers. Mortality from leukemia, excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)--the cause of death most strongly and consistently related to radiation dose in studies of atomic bomb survivors and other populations exposed at high dose rates--was significantly associated with cumulative external radiation dose (one-sided P value = 0.046; 119 deaths). Among the 31 other specific types of cancer studied, a significant association was observed only for multiple myeloma (one-sided P value = 0.037; 44 deaths), and this was attributable primarily to the associations reported previously between this disease and radiation dose in the Hanford (U.S.) and Sellafield (UK) cohorts. The excess relative risk (ERR) estimates for all cancers excluding leukemia, and leukemia excluding CLL, the two main groupings of causes of death for which risk estimates have been derived from studies of atomic bomb survivors, were -0.07 per Sv [90% confidence interval (CI): -0.4, 0.3] and 2.18 per Sv (90% CI: 0.1, 5.7), respectively. These values correspond to a relative risk of 0.99 for all cancers excluding leukemia and 1.22 for leukemia excluding CLL for a cumulative protracted dose of 100 mSv compared to 0 mSv. These estimates, which did not differ significantly across cohorts or between men and women, are the most comprehensive and precise direct estimates of cancer risk associated with low-dose protracted exposures obtained to date. Although they are lower than the linear estimates obtained from studies of atomic bomb survivors, they are compatible with a range of possibilities, from a reduction of risk at low doses, to risks twice those on which current radiation protection recommendations are based.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS), a multidisciplinary and large prospective cohort study in Araihazar, Bangladesh, was established to evaluate the effects of full-dose range arsenic (As) exposure on various health outcomes, including premalignant and malignant skin tumors, total mortality, pregnancy outcomes, and children's cognitive development. In this paper, we provide descriptions of the study methods including study design, study population, data collection, response rates, and exposure and outcome assessments. We also present characteristics of the study participants including the distribution of exposure and the prevalence of skin lesion at baseline recruitment. A total of 11,746 married men and women between 18 and 75 years of age participated in the study at baseline (a response rate of 98%) and completed a full questionnaire interview that included a food frequency questionnaire, with a response rate of 98%. Among the 98% of the participants who completed the clinical evaluation, over 90% provided blood samples and spot urine samples. Higher educational status, male gender, and presence of premalignant skin lesions were associated with an increased likelihood of providing blood and urine samples. Older participants were less likely to donate a blood sample. About one-third of the participants consumed water from a well with As concentration in each of three groups: >100 microg/l, 25-100 microg/l, and <25 microg/l. Average urinary As concentrations were 140 and 136 microg/l for males and females, respectively. HEALS has several unique features, including a prospective study design, comprehensive assessments of both past and future changes in As exposure at the individual level, a large repository of biological samples, and a full dose range of As exposures in the study population. HEALS is a valuable resource for examining novel research questions on the health effects of As exposure.
We conducted a combined analysis of the original data to evaluate the consistency of 12 case-control studies of diet and breast cancer. Our analysis shows a consistent, statistically significant, positive association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake in postmenopausal women (relative risk for highest vs. lowest quintile, 1.46; P less than .0001). A consistent protective effect for a number of markers of fruit and vegetable intake was demonstrated; vitamin C intake had the most consistent and statistically significant inverse association with breast cancer risk (relative risk for highest vs. lowest quintile, 0.69; P less than .0001). If these dietary associations represent causality, the attributable risk (i.e., the percentage of breast cancers that might be prevented by dietary modification) in the North American population is estimated to be 24% for postmenopausal women and 16% for premenopausal women.
We found no evidence of a positive association between total dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no reduction in risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent of total energy intake. In the context of the Western lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is unlikely to reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially.
Millions of persons around the world are exposed to low doses of arsenic through drinking water. However, estimates of health effects associated with low-dose arsenic exposure have been extrapolated from high-dose studies. In Bangladesh, many persons have been exposed to a wide range of doses of arsenic from drinking water over a significant period of time. The authors evaluated dose-response relations between arsenic exposure from drinking water and premalignant skin lesions by using baseline data on 11,746 participants recruited in 2000-2002 for the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Several measures of arsenic exposure were estimated for each participant based on well-water arsenic concentration and usage pattern of the wells and on urinary arsenic concentration. In different regression models, consistent dose-response effects were observed for all arsenic exposure measures. Compared with drinking water containing <8.1 microg/liter of arsenic, drinking water containing 8.1-40.0, 40.1-91.0, 91.1-175.0, and 175.1-864.0 microg/liter of arsenic was associated with adjusted prevalence odds ratios of skin lesions of 1.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26, 2.89), 3.03 (95% CI: 2.05, 4.50), 3.71 (95% CI: 2.53, 5.44), and 5.39 (95% CI: 3.69, 7.86), respectively. The effect seemed to be influenced by gender, age, and body mass index. These findings provide information that should be considered in future research and policy decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.