Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 78–84

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e86a478d20.08095360

E.N. Lykova^1,2, M.V. Zheltonozhskaya^1,2, F.Yu. Smirnov³, P.I. Rudnev⁴, A.P. Chernyaev^1,2, I.V. Cheshigin⁵, V.N. Yatsenko³

Analysis of the Bremsstrahlung Photons Flux and the Neutrons Beams during the Operation of an Electrons Medical Accelerator

1. Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia;
3. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
4. LLC “Center ATSP”, Moscow, Russia;
5. National Research Center «Kurchatov Institute», Moscow, Russia

E.N. Lykova – Senior Lecturer;
M.V. Zheltonozhskaya – Senior Researcher, PhD Tech.;
F.Yu. Smirnov – Medical Physicist;
P.I. Rudnev – Director;
A.P. Chernyaev – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Phys.-Math., Prof.;
I.V. Cheshigin – Senior Researcher;
V.N. Yatsenko – Head of Lab., PhD Tech.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the contribution of the secondary neutron flux to the total radiation flux during the operation of Trilogy linear medical accelerator and Varian’s Clinac 2100 accelerator for assessment of impact on the health of patients and medical personnel.

High-energy linear accelerators operating at energies higher than 8 MeV generate neutron fluxes when interacting with accelerator elements and with structural materials of the room for treating patients. Neutrons can form at the accelerator head (target, collimators, smoothing filter, etc.), the procedure room, and directly in the patient’s body.

Because of the high radiobiological hazard of neutron radiation, its contribution to the total beam flux, even at a level of few percent, substantially increases the dose received by the patient.

Material and methods: Secondary neutron fluxes were investigated during the process of the linear medical accelerators Trilogy and Clinac 2100 of Varian operation by the photoactivation method using (γ, n) and (n, γ) reactions on the detection target of natural 181Ta. In addition, measurements of neutron spectra were carried out directly in the room during the operation of a medical accelerator using a spectrometer-dosimeter SDMF-1608.

Results: It was determined that the neutron flux on the tantalum target is 16 % of the gamma-ray flux on the same target when the accelerator is operated with a 18 MeV bremsstrahlung energy and 5 % when the accelerator is operated with a 20 MeV excluding thermal neutrons.

Conclusion: Finally, it may be noted that, taking into account the coefficient of relative biological efficiency (RBE) of neutron radiation for neutrons with energies of 0.1–200 keV equal to 10 compared with the RBE coefficient for gamma quanta (equal to 1), even preliminary analysis demonstrates significant underestimation of the contribution of neutrons dose to the total dose received by the patient in radiation therapy using bremsstrahlung of 18 and 20 MeV.

Key words: radiation therapy, bremstrahlung, photonuclear reactions, secondary neutrons, activation method

REFERENCES

1. Carrillo HR, Almaraz BH, Dávila VM, Hernández AO. Neutron spectrum and doses in a 18 MV Linac. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. 2010;283:261-5.

2. Zanini A, Durisi E, Fasolo F, Ongaro C, Visca L, Nastasi U, et al. Monte Carlo simulation of the photoneutron field in linac radiotherapy treatments with different collimation systems. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:571-82.

3. Pena J, Franco L, Gómez F, Iglesias A, Pardo J, Pombar M. Monte Carlo study of Siemens PRIMUS photoneutron production. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:5921-33.

4. Seltzer SM. An assessment of the role of charged seconderies from nonelastic nuclear interaction by therapy proton beam in water. National Institute of Standards and Tehnology Technical Reports No. NISTIR 5221, 1993.

5. Schimmerling W, Rapkin M, Wong M, Howard J. The propagation of relativistic heavy ions in multielement beam lines. Med Phys. 1986;13:217-23.

6. Varzar SM, Tultaev AV, Chernyaev AP. The role of secondary particles in the passage of ionizing radiation through biological media. Med Fizika . 2001;9:58-67. (Russian).

7. Satherberg A, Johansson L. Photonuclear production in tissue for different 50 MV bremstrahlung beams. Med Phys. 1998;25:683.

8. Allen PD, Chaudhri MA. The dose contribution due to photonuclear reaction during radioterapy. Med Phys. 1982;9:904.

9. Spurny F, Johansson L, Satherberg A, Bednar J, Turek K. The contribution of secondery heavy particles to the absorbed dose from high energy photon beam. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:2643.

10. Ahnesjo A, Weber L, Nilsson P. Modeling transmission and scatter or photon beam attenuator. Med Phys. 1995;22:1711.

11. Gottschalk B, Platais R, Paganetti H. Nuclear interaction of 160 MeV protons stopping in copper: a test of Monte Carlo nuclear models. Med Phys. 1999;26:2597.

12. Carlsson CA, Carlsson GA. Proton dosimetry with 185 MeV protons: dose buildup from secondery protons recoil electrons. Health Phys. 1977;33:481.

13. Deasy JO. A proton dose calculation algorithm for conformal therapy simulations based on Molieres theory of lateral deflections. Phys Med. 1998;25:476.

14. Hassan Ali Nedaie, Hoda Darestani, Nooshin Banaee, Negin Shagholi, Kheirollah Mohammadi, Arjang Shahvar et al. Neutron dose measurements of Varian and Elekta linacs by TLD600 and TLD700 dosimeters and comparison with MCNP calculations. J Med Phys 2014;39(1):10-17.

15. Hashemi SM, Hashemi-Malayeri B, Raisali G, Shokrani P, Sharafi AA. A study of the photoneutron dose equivalent resulting from a Saturne 20 medical linac using Monte Carlo method. Nukleonika; 2007;52:39-43.

16. PTW Freiburg GmbH, Germany. Available from: http://www.ptw.de/acrylic_and_ rw3_slab_phantoms0.html.

17. Alireza Naseria, Asghar Mesbahia. A review on photoneutrons characteristics in radiation therapy with high-energy photon beams. Rep Practical Oncol Radiother. 2010;15:138-44.

18. Sellin PJ, Jaffar G, Jastaniah SD. Performance of digital algorithms for n/γ pulse shape discrimination using a liquid scintillation detector. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2003.

19. Digital Gamma Neutron Discrimination with Liquid Scintillators. Application Note AN2506. Rev. 3, 09 September 2016. 00117-10-DGT20-ANXX.

20. X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy. ISO 4037.

21. Reference neutron radiations. ISO 8529.

22. Moiseev NN, Dydyk AV. Investigation of the scintillation spectrometer-dosimeter of gamma quanta and fast neutrons. ANRI. 2016;4:24-30. (Russian).

23. Description Spectrometer-dosimeter SDMF-1608. Available from: www.centeradc.ru.

24. Varlamov AV, Varlamov VV, Rudenko DS, Stepanov ME. Atlas of Giant Dipole Resonances. IAEA Nuclear Data Section. Vienna: Wagramerstrasse 5, A-1400. 1999.

25. McDermott BJ, Blain E, Daskalakis A, et al. Ta(n,γ) cross section and average resonance parameter measurements in the unresolved resonance region from 24 to 1180 keV using a filtered-beam technique. Phys Rev. 2017;96:014607(11).

For citation: Lykova EN, Zheltonozhskaya MV, Smirnov FYu, Rudnev PI, Chernyaev AP, Cheshigin IV, Yatsenko VN. Analysis of the Bremsstrahlung Photons Flux and the Neutrons Beams during the Operation of an Electrons Medical Accelerator. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):78-84. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e86a478d20.08095360

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 0–45

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

А.Б. Майзик¹,

Компле

1. АО «Высокотехнологический научно-исследовательский институт неорганических материалов им. академика

А.Б. Майзик – зам. главного инженера, нач. службы, аспирант;
И.П. Коренков – г.н.с., к.т.н., д.б.н., проф.;

Abstract

Key words:

REFERENCES

For citation:

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 85–88

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e96f80d074.65473780

S.F. Vershinina

Past and Present of Radiation Diagnostics and Treatment of Malignant Tumors
(On the 100 Anniversary of FSBI A.M. Granov RRCRST of the Ministry of Healthcare Russian Federation)

Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies named after A.M. Granov, St. Petersburg, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

S.F. Vershinina – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol.

For citation: Vershinina SF. Past and Present of Radiation of Diagnostics and Treatment of Malignant Tumors (To the 100 Anniversary of FSBI A.M. Granov RRCRST of the Ministry of Healthcare Russian Federation). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):85-8. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e96f80d074.65473780

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 5–17

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1adb25725023.14868717

A.N. Koterov¹, L.N. Ushenkova¹, E.S. Zubenkova¹, A.A. Wainson², M.V. Kalinina¹, A.P. Biryukov¹

Strength of Association.
Report 1. Graduations of Relative Risk

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Moscow, Russia

A.N. Koterov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Biol.;
L.N. Ushenkova – Leading Researcher, PhD Biol.;
E.S. Zubenkova – Leading Researcher, PhD Biol.;
A.A. Wainson – Head of Group, Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
M.V. Kalinina – Engineer;
A.P. Biryukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize data on graduation of the effect size on the base of Hill’s first causality criterion ‘Strength of association’ on relative risk parameters (RR).

Material and methods: Survey of published sources: monographs, handbooks, papers, educational material on statistics in various disciplines (including on-line), etc. (128 references; of which about 30 handbooks on epidemiology, carcinogenesis and medical statistics).

Results: For the RR value, the collected data summary (1980–2018) implies non-homogeneity in concepts. The most common references are to the Monson scale (two editions of the monograph on the epidemiology of occupational exposures Monson R.R., 1980; 1990). In our opinion, the optimal graduation can be developed on the basis of this scale, and it should include both the range of no effect (RR = 0.9–1.2) and the weak (RR = 1.2–1.5, or 0.7–0.9), moderate (RR = 1.5–3.0, or 0.4–0.7), strong (RR = 3.0–10.0; or 0.1–0.4) and very strong (RR = 10.0–40.0; or 0.0–0.1) ranges. Examples of epidemiological effects with overwhelming strength of association are presented (RR > 40.0). For the effects of thalidomide, RR reached thousands, for diethylstilbestrol, conditional infinity, and when irradiated in childhood, the frequency of some cancers increased tens and even hundreds of times. The juristic aspects of compensation payment based on RR are briefly reviewed. According to the Daubert rule (Daubert ruling, Daubert standard) on the 1993 precedent in the United States, risks are recognized only at RR > 2.0, when the probability of causality is more than 50 %.

Conclusions: To estimate the RR value, one should use the most common and officially established Monson scale, albeit with an expansion in the range of dramatic or overhelming risks. This study can be used as a reference guide on the graduations of effect size on RR (OR) for a wide variety of observed disciplines.

Key words: graduation of effect size, ordinal scales, relative risk, epidemiology

REFERENCES

1. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology. An Introduction. 2nd edition. – Oxford University Press Inc, 2012. 268 p.
2. Hume D. A Treatise of Human Nature. Second edition. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
3. Mill JS. A System of Logic. Book III, Chs. 8-10. – London, 1843.
4. Causality in the Sciences. Ed. by P.M. Illari, Russo F, Williamson J. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 882 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.001.0001.
5. Hendry RF. Is there downward causation in Chemistry? In: Philosophy Of Chemistry. Ed. by D. Baird, E. Scerri, L. McIntyre. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2006;242:173-89. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3261-7_9.
6. Kundi M. Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(7):969-974. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8297.
7. Bhopal RS. Concepts of Epidemiology: Integrated the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. 3rd edition. – Oxford: University Press, 2016. 442 p.
8. Brady HE. Causation and explanation in Social Science. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Ed. by R.E. Goodin. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 64 p. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049.
9. Egilman D, Kim J, Biklen M. Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom – an epidemiologist’s critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Food Drug Law J. 2003;58(2):223-50.
10. Gayon J. Chance, explanation, and causation in evolutionary theory. Hist Philos Life Sci. 2005;27(3-4):395-405.
11. BEIR VII Report 2006. Phase 2. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, – National Research Council. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html (Address data 2019.01.23).
12. Doll R. Weak associations in epidemiology: importance, detection, and interpretation. J Epidemiol. 1996;6(4 Suppl):S11–S20.
13. Hill BA. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58(5):295-300. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814562718.
14. Westling T. Male organ and economic growth: does size matter? HECER – Helsinki Center of Economic Research. Discussion Paper No. 335. July 2011. 16 p. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27239/maleorga.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
15. Koterov AN. Causal criteria in medical and biological disciplines: history, essence and Radiation Aspect. Report 1. Problem statement, conception of causes and causation, false associations. Radiat Biol Radioecol. (‘Radiation biology. Radioecology’, Moscow). 2019;59(1):5-36. (Russian. English abstract.)
16. Vierra A, Pollock J, Golez F. Reading Educational Research. 3rd. Edition. – Upper Saddle River, N.J. Merrile/Prentice Hall, 1992.
17. Cottrell R, McKenzie JF. Health Promotion & Education Research Methods: Using the Five Chapter Thesis/Dissertation Model. 2nd Edition. – Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2010. 345 p.
18. Heath W. Psychology Research Methods: Connecting Research to Students’ Lives. – Cambridge University Press, 2018. 404 p.
19. Handbook of Epidemiology. Second Edition. Ed. by W. Ahrens, I. Pigeot. – New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2014. 2498 p.
20. Boice JD Jr. Radiation epidemiology and recent paediatric computed tomography studies. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(1 Suppl):236-48. DOI: 10.1177/0146645315575877.
21. Susser M. What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133(7):635-48. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115939.
22. Kaufman JS, Poole C. Looking back on ‘causal thinking in the health sciences’. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:101-19. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.101.
23. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(3):413-9. Reprint: Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2009;6(4). DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-6-4.
24. Sartwell PE. ‘On the methodology of investigations of etiologic factors in chronic diseases.’ Further Comments. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11(1):61-3. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(60)90140-5.
25. Susser M. Glossary: causality in public health science. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(6):376-78. DOI: 10.1136/jech.55.6.376.
26. Stallones RA. The association between tobacco smoking and coronary heart disease. Draft Report of June 28 to the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. University of Minnesota Archives, Leonard M. Schuman Papers, Box 52, ‘Cardiovascular’. 1963. (Published in: Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(3):735-43. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv124.)
27. Evans AS. Causation and disease: The Henle-Koch postulates revisited. Yale J Biol Med. 1976;49(2);175-95.
28. Blackburn H, Labarthe D. Stories from the evolution of guidelines for causal inference in epidemiologic associations: 1953-1965. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(12):1071-7. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws374.
29. Epidemiology: Principles and Practical Guidelines. Ed. by J. Van den Broeck, J.R. Brestoff. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. 621 p.
30. Phillips CV, Goodman KJ. Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 2006;3(Article 5):7. DOI: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-5.
31. Lipton R, Odegaard T. Causal thinking and causal language in epidemiology: it’s in the details. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2005;29(2 Article 8). DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-2-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1198241/pdf/1742-5573-2-8.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
32. Bonita R, Beaglehole R, Kjellstrom T. Basic epidemiology. 2nd edition. – World Health Organization, 2006. 212 p.
33. Coughlin SS. Causal Inference and Scientific Paradigms in Epidemiology. – Bentham E-book, 2010. 70 p. DOI: 10.2174/97816080518161100101. https://ebooks.benthamscience.com/book/9781608051816/ (Address data 2019.01.23).
34. Glynn JR. A question of attribution. Lancet. 1993;342(8870):530-2.
35. Hammond EC. Cause and effect // In: The Biologic Effects of Tobacco. Ed. by E.L. Wynder. – Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1955. P. 171-96.
36. Weed DL, Gorelic LS. The practice of causal inference in cancer epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1996;5(4):303-11.
37. Answers. Statistics. Offset – Minsk: BSU, 2010. 38 p. (Russian).
38. Pearson Correlation Criterion. Site ‘Medical Statistics’. http://medstatistic.ru/theory/pirson.html (Address data 2019.01.23). (Russian).
39. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General, US Public Health Service, 2004. 910 p. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
40. Goodman SN, Samet JM. Cause and Cancer Epidemiology // In: Schottenfeld and Fraumeni Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 4th Edition. Ed. by M.J. Thun et al. – New York: Oxford University Press. Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc, USA, 2018. P. 97-104.
41. Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Confounding in epidemiological studies: why ‘independent’ effects may not be all they seem. Brit Med J. 1992;305(6870):757-9.
42. Holmes LJ. Applied Epidemiologic Principles and Concepts. Clinicians’ Guide to Study Design and Conduct. – New York: Taylor & Francis, 2018. 316 p.
43. Mandil A. Causal Inference in Epidemiology. Lection Presentation. High Institute of Public Health. University of Alexandria. https://ru.scribd.com/doc/306778054/Causal-Inference-in-Epidemiology. Presentation: www.pitt.edu/~super4/33011-34001/33971.ppt (Address data 2019.01.23).
44. Vlasov VV. Epidemiology. Second Edition, rev. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2006. 464 p. (Russian).
45. Scheutz F, Poulsen S. Determining causation in epidemiology. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27(3):161-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02006.x.
46. Koterov AN. From very low to very large doses of radiation: new data on ranges definitions and its experimental and epidemiological basing. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2013;58(2):5-21. (In Russian. English abstract.)
47. Kornysheva EA, Platonov DY, Rodionov AA, Shabashov AE. Epidemiology and Statistics as Tools of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2nd Edition, revised and updated. Tver, 2009. 80 p. (Russian).
48. Lilienfeld’s Foundations of Epidemiology. 4th Edition. Original Ed. by A.M. Lilienfeld; Ed. by D. Schneider, D.E. Lilienfeld. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 333 p.
49. Berry KJ, Johnston JE, Mielke PW, Jr. The Measurement of Association. A Permutation Statistical Approach. – Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2018. – 647 p.
50. Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. Ed. by S. Loue. – New York: Springer, 2013. – 157 p.
51. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology. Beyond the Basics. 4th Edition. – Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2019. 577 p.
52. Kestenbaum B. Epidemiology and Biostatistics. An Introduction to Clinical Research. 2nd Edition. Ed. by N.S. Weiss, A. Shoben. – Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2019. 277 p.
53. Bruce N, Pope D, Stanistreet D. Quantitative Methods for Health Research. A Practical Interactive Guide to Epidemiology and Statistics. 2nd Edition. – Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. 545 p.
54. Clinical Epidemiology. Practice and Methods. 2nd edition. Ed. by P.S. Parfrey, B.J. Barrett. – New York: Humana Press (brand of Springer), 2015. 533 p.
55. Webb P, Bain C. Essential Epidemiology. An Introduction for Students and Health Professionals. 2nd Edition. – Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 445 p.
56. Pokrovsky VI, Pak SG, Briko NI, Danilkin BK. Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology. Textbook for High Schools. 2nd edition. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2007. 816 p. (Russian).
57. General Epidemiology with the Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine: a Guide to Practical Exercises: Studies. A Textbook for High Schools. Ed. by V.I. Pokrovsky, N.I. Briko. 2nd Edition, Corr. and add. – M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2012. 496 p.
58. Smith GD. Smoking and lung cancer: causality, Cornfield and an early observational meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(5):1169-71.
59. Schield M. Confounding and Cornfield: back to the future // In: Proc. 10th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS10, July, 2018), Kyoto, Japan. Ed. by M.A. Sorto, A. White, L. Guyot. 2018. 2018. 6 p. http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2018-Schield-ICOTS.pdf (Address data 2019.01.24).
60. Cornfield J. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix. J Nat Cancer Inst. 1951;11(6):1269-75. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/11.6.1269.
61. Cornfield J. Principles of research: 1959. Stat Med. 2012;31(24):2760-8. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5413.
62. Gastwirth JL, Krieger AM, Rosenbaum PR. Cornfield’s Inequality// In: Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Online. – John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005. 3 p. DOI: 10.1002/0470011815.b2a03040. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/0470011815.b2a03040 (Address data 2019.01.24).
63. Greenhouse JB. Commentary: Cornfield, Epidemiology and Causality. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(5):1199-201. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp299.
64. Rojo AML. Fisher. Statistical Conclusion. Maybe Yes, Maybe Not. The science. The Greatest Theories: Issue 47: Trans. with ital. M.: De Agostini LLC, 2015. 176 p. https://www.goodreads.com/series/191514 (Address data 2019.01.24). (Russian).
65. Fisher RA. Smoking: The cancer controversy. Some attempts to assess the evidence. – Edinburgh & London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959. 17 p.
66. Khoury MJ, James LM, Flanders WD, Erickson JD. Interpretation of recurring weak associations obtained from epidemiologic studies of suspected human teratogens. Teratology. 1992;46(1):4669-77. DOI: 10.1002/tera.1420460110.
67. Wynder EL. Workshop on Guidelines to the Epidemiology of Weak Associations. Introduction. Prev Med. 1987;16(2):139-41.
68. Boffetta P. Causation in the presence of weak associations. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010;50(S1):13-6. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2010.526842.
69. Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995;269(5221):164-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7618077.
70. Tugwell P, Knottnerus A, Idzerda L. Is an odds ratio of 3 too high a threshold for true associations in clinical epidemiology?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):465-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.009.
71. Redelmeier DA, Yarnell CJ. Lethal misconceptions: interpretation and bias in studies of traffic deaths. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):467-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.007.
72. Weed DL. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal. 2005;25(6):1545-57. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x.
73. Gori GB. Epidemiologic evidence in public and legal policy: reality or metaphor? Critical Legal Issues. – Washington: Washington Legal Foundation.. Working Paper Series No. 124, 2004. 33 p.
74. Parascandola M, Weed DL, Dasgupta A. Two Surgeon General’s reports on smoking and cancer: a historical investigation of the practice of causal inference. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2006;3(1): 11 p. DOI: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-1.
75. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (USDHEW). Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service Publication No. 1103. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1964. 387 p. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/nnbbmq.pdf (Address data 2019.02.02).
76. US Department of Health and Human Service. Public Health Service. Office on Smoking and Health. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer: Report of the Surgeon General. – Rockville, Mariland, 1982. 322 p. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/D/W/ (Address data 2019.02.02).
77. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. Annex I. Epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer. United Nations. – New York, 2000. P. 297-450.
78. UNSCEAR 2006. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Annex A. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer. United Nations. – New York, 2008. P. 17-322.
79. UNSCEAR 2013. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. Vol. II. Annex B. Effects of radiation exposure of children. United Nations. – New York, 2013. P. 1-268.
80. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(9):771-8. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324.
81. World Health Organization. Epidemiology of occupational health. Ed. by M. Karvonen, M.I. Mikheev. WHO Regional Publications, European Series No. 20. Copenhagen, 1986. 394 p.
82. Weed DL. Higher standards for epidemiologic studies – replication prior to publication? J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(10):937. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.10.937.
83. Weed DL. Epidemiologic evidence and causal inference. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000;14(4):797-807.
84. Weed DL. Causation: an epidemiologic perspective (in five parts). J Low & Policy. 2003;12(1):43-53. http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol12/iss1/3 (Address data 2019.01.24).
85. Weed DL. Precaution, prevention, and public health ethics. J Med Philos. 2004;29(3):313-32. DOI: 10.1080/03605310490500527.
86. Szklo M. The evaluation of epidemiologic evidence for policy-making. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(12 Suppl):S13-7.
87. Monson RR. Occupational Epidemiology. – Florida: Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1980. 219 p.
88. Monson RR. Occupational Epidemiology. 2nd Edition. – Florida: Boca Raton, CRC Press Inc, 1990. 312 p.
89. Craun GF. Epidemiologic studies of organic micropollutants in drinking water. Sci Total Environ. 1985;47:461-72. DOI: 10.1016/0048-9697(85)90350-X.
90. Craun GF, Calderon RL. How to interpret epidemiological associations // In: Nutrition in Drinking Water. 2005. P. 108-15. WHO. Water Sanitation Gygiene http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap9.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
91. Oleckno WA. Essential Epidemiology: Principles and Applications. – Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2002. 384 p.
92. Oleckno WA. Epidemiology: Concepts and Methods. – Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2008. 649 p.
93. Kasule OM. 0802-Measures of Effect: Rate Ratio and Odds Ratio (Review). Lecture // Islamic Medical Education Resource. 2008. http://omarkasule-05.tripod.com/id52.html (Address data 2019.01.25).
94. Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance. Ed. by J. Cotruvo, J. Bartram. – Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009. 180 p. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563550_eng.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
95. Rosenthal JA. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res. 1996;21(4):37-59. DOI: 10.1300/J079v21n04_02.
96. De Menezes RF, Bergmann A, Thuler LC. Alcohol consumption and risk of cancer: a systematic literature review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(9):4965-72.
97. Bhopal RS. Concepts of Epidemiology: An integrated introduction to the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. – Oxford: University Press, 2002. 317 p.
98. Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and postnwketing surveillance. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(9):841-4.
99. Shapiro S. Case-Control Surveillance // In: Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd Edition. Ed. by B.L. Strom. – Baffins Lane. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. P. 209-30.
100. Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies // In: Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd Edition. Ed. by B.L. Strom. – Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. P. 17-30.
101. Shakir SA, Layton D. Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Saf. 2002;25(6):467-71. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00012.
102. Schoenbach VJ, Rosamund WD. Relating risk factors to health outcomes // In: Understanding the Fundamentals of Epidemiology – An evolving text. Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, 2000. P. 161-207.
103. Degelman ML, Herman KM. Smoking and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Bradford Hill criteria for causation. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;17:207-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2017.07.020.
104. Schoenbach VJ. Relating risk factors to health outcomes. 2008. P. 161-207. http://www.epidemiolog.net/evolving/RelatingRiskFactorstoHealth.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
105. Singer R. Introduction to epidemiology and causal inference. Presentation. Executive Veterinary Program. University of Illinois. 2014. 8 p. http://vetmed.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/6.-Module-2.1.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
106. Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. 2002. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html (Address data 01.02.2019).
107. Saracci R. Epidemiology. A Very Short Introduction. – New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2010. 171 p.
108. Rothman KJ, Poole C. A strengthening programme for weak associations. Int J Epidemiol. 1988;17(4):955-9. DOI: 10.1093/ije/17.4.955.
109. Doll R. Cancer // In: Medical Surveys and Clinical Trials. Ed. by L.J. Witts. 2nd Edition. – London: Oxford University Press, 1964. P. 333.
110. Herbst AL, Ulfelder H, Poskanzer DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. N Engl J Med. 1971;284(15):878-81. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197104222841604.
111. Yang Q, Khoury MJ, James LM, et al. The return of thalidomide: are birth defects surveillance systems ready? Am J Med Genet. 1997;73(3):251-8.
112. Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Lin CC, Chien CS. Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. A prospective study of 22 707 men in Taiwan. Lancet. 1981;2(8256):1129-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(81)90585-7.
113. Ha M, Lee SY, Hwang SS, et al. Evaluation report on the causal association between humidifier disinfectants and lung injury. Epidemiol Health. 2016;38:Article e2016037. DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2016037.
114. Fedeli U, Girardi P, Gardiman G, et al. Mortality from liver angiosarcoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cirrhosis among vinyl chloride workers. Am J Ind Med. 2019;62(1):14-20. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22922.
115. Lushnikov EF, Tsyb AF, Yamashita S. Thyroid cancer in Russia after Chernobyl. – Moscow: Meditsina, 2006.128 p. (Russian. English abstract.)
116. Jacob P, Goulko G, Heidenreich WF, et al. Thyroid cancer risk to children calculated. Nature. 1998;392(6671):31-2. DOI: 10.1038/32076.
117. Belookaya TV, Korytko SS, Melnov SB. Medical effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Mater. 4 Int. Congress on Integrat. Anthropology. – Saint Petersburg, 2002. P. 24-5. (Russian).
118. Hunter RJ, Jr, Shannon JH, Amoroso HJ. How to manage issues relating to the use of trial experts: standards for the introduction of expert testimony through judicial “Gate-Keeping” and scientific verification. J Management and Strategy. 2018:9(1):11. DOI: 10.5430/jms.v9n1p1.
119. Cole P. Causality in epidemiology, health policy and law. Environmental Law Reporter. 1997;27(6):10279-85.
120. Barnes DW. Too many probabilities: statistical evidence of tort causation. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2001;64(4):191-212. DOI: 10.2307/1192295.
121. Lagiou P, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D. Causality in cancer epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20(7):565-74.
122. Lagiou P, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO. Concepts in Cancer Epidemiology and Etiology // In: Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology. 2nd Edition. Ed. by H.O. Adami, D. Hunter, D. Trichopoulos. – New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 127-52. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311174.003.0006.
123. Bae S, Kim HC, Ye B, Choi WJ, Hong YS, Ha M. Causal inference in environmental epidemiology. Environ Health Toxicol. 2017;32:Article e2017015. DOI: 10.5620/eht.e2017015.
124. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, et al. Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005;24(4):161-201. DOI: 10.1191/0960327105ht517oa.
125. Hollingsworth JG, Lasker EG. The Case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation. Testimony, and the scientific method. J Health Law. 2004;37(1):85-111. 126. Ferguson CJ. Is psychology research really as good as medical research? Effect size comparisons between psychology and medicine. Rev Gen Psychol. 2009;13(2):130-6. DOI: 10.1037/a0015103.
127. Koterov AN, Zharkova GP, Biryukov AP. Tandem of radiation epidemiology and radiobiology for practice and radiation protection. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2010; 55(5):48-73. (Russian. English abstract.)
128. Biryukov AP, Vasil’ev EV, Dumansky SM, Belyikh LN. Information-analytical support for radiation-epidemiological research activities. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2014; 59(6):34-42. (Russian. English abstract.)

For citation: Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Zubenkova ES, Wainson AA, Kalininna MV, Biryukov AP. Strength of Association. Report 1. Graduation of Relative Risk. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):5–17. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1adb25725023.14868717

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)