Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 5. P. 81–88

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-5-81-88

V.V. Uyba¹, A.V. Akleyev^2,3, T.V. Azizova⁴, V.K. Ivanov⁵, L.A. Karpikova¹, S.M. Kiselev⁶, S.G. Mikheyenko⁷, S.A. Romanov⁴, R.M. Takhauov^8,9, V.Yu. Usoltsev⁷, S.M. Shinkarev⁶

Results of the 66-th Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 10–14 June, 2019)

1. Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia, Moscow, Russia;
2. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. Е-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
3. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia;
4. Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Region, Russia;
5. A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russia;
6. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
7. State Atomic Energy Corporation “ROSATOM”, Moscow, Russia;
8. Seversk Biophysical Research Center, Seversk, Russia;
9. Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia

V.V. Uyba – Head of the Medical and Biological Agency, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
A.V. Akleyev – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
T.V. Azizova – Deputy Director, PhD Med.;
V.K. Ivanov – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Tech., Prof., Corr. Member of RAS;
L.A. Karpikova – Head of Dep.; S.M. Kiselev – Head of Lab., PhD Biol.;
S.G. Mikheyenko – Section Head of State Atomic Energy Corporation “ROSATOM”, PhD Phys.-Math.;
S.A. Romanov – Director, PhD Biol.;
R.M. Takhauov – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
V.Yu. Usoltsev – Chief Specialist;
S.M. Shinkarev – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Tech.

Abstract

The current paper is devoted to the outcomes of the 66-th UNSCEAR Session which took place in Vienna during 10–14 June 2018. Within the framework of the meetings of the Working Group and subgroups the documents on the following projects were discussed:

• R.733. Evaluation of selected health effects and inference of risk due to radiation exposure.
• R.734. Evaluation of medical exposures to ionizing radiation.
• R.735. Evaluation of occupational exposures to ionizing radiation.
• R.736. Lung cancer from exposure to radon.
• R.737. Biological mechanisms relevant for the inference of cancer risks from low-dose radiation.
• R.738. Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station: implications of information published since the 2013 UNSCEAR report.
• R.739. Second primary cancer after radiotherapy.
• R.740. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer.

The Committee also discussed: the future research program; report to the UN General Assembly; implementation of a strategy plan to improve collection, analysis and dissemination of data on radiation exposure; public outreach activity including the strategy for the period 2020–2024.

Key words: UNSCEAR, 66-th Session, low doses, biological effects, epidemiology, medical exposure, occupational exposure

REFERENCES

1. Occupational intakes of radionuclides: Part 1. ICRP Publication 130. Ann ICRP 44(2), Elsevier Ltd., 2015. ICRP, 2015.
2. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Volume II: Scientific Annexes C, D and E. UNSCEAR 2006. Report, New York, 2009.
3. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon. Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon, BEIR VI. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
4. Tomasek L, Rogel A, Tirmarche M, Mitton N, Laurier D. Lung cancer in French and Czech uranium miners: Radon-associated risk at low exposure rates and modifying effects of time since exposure and age at exposure. Radiat Res. 2008;169(2):125-37. DOI: 10.1667/RR0848.1.
5. Walsh L, Tschense A, Schnelzer M, Dufey F, Grosche B, Kreuzer M. The influence of radon exposures on lung cancer mortality in German uranium miners, 1946–2003. Radiat Res. 2010;173(1): 79-90. DOI: 10.1667/RR1803.1.
6. Rühm W, Eidemüller M, Kaiser JC. Biologically-based mechanistic models of radiation-related carcinogenesis applied to epidemiological data. Int J Radiat Biol. 2017;1093-117. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2017.1310405.

For citation: Uyba VV, Akleyev AV, Azizova TV, Ivanov VK, Karpikova LA, SM Kiselev, SG Mikheyenko, Romanov SA, Takhauov RM, Usoltsev VYu, Shinkarev SM. Results of the 66-th Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 10–14 June, 2019). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(5):81-8. (in Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-5-81-88

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 12–24

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-12-24

A.N. Koterov¹, L.N. Ushenkova¹, E.S. Zubenkova¹, M.V. Kalinina¹, A.P. Biryukov¹, E.M. Lastochkina¹, D.V. Molodtsova¹, А.А. Wainson²

Strength of Association.
Report 2. Graduations of Correlation Size

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, 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.;
M.V. Kalinina – Engineer;
A.P. Biryukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
E.M. Lastochkina – Engineer;
D.V. Molodtsova – Engineer;
A.A. Wainson – Head of Group, Dr. Sci. Biol., 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 the magnitude of the correlation coefficient (mainly Pearson r).
Material and methods: Survey of published sources: monographs, handbooks, papers, educational material on statistics in various disciplines (including on-line), etc. (121 references; of which more than 20 textbooks on statistical methods and statistics in psychology and 8 textbooks on epidemiology).

Results: Estimation of the strength of association by the correlation size is most common in psycho-sociological disciplines and is almost never used in epidemiology (since the establishment of a fact of statistically significant association/correlation in epidemiology is only the initial stage of evidence, unlike the experimental and named disciplines). A number of known scales for r were obtained: the Chaddok scale (R.E. Chaddock) from 1925, which is now apparently not used abroad, but widely represented in the countries of the former USSR, the Cohen scale (J. Cohen) from 1969–1988, reflecting the ‘soft’ criteria of causality in psychology, D.E. Hinkle with co-authors scale (1979–2003) and the Evans scale (J.D. Evans) from 1996. A number of other graduations, published in the singular, are also given. A total of at least 16 different scales of varying degrees were collected for the correlation coefficient r (1925–2019). The information about the value of r for correlations, which should be neglected was presented. Depending on the source, this is r <0.1; r <0.2 or r <0.3. The data on the possibility of transferring graduations from the Pearson coefficient r to the Spearman correlation coefficient and other parameters of the effect size are given.
The question of the difference between estimation of strength of association in epidemiology and medicine and in psycho-sociological disciplines is considered. Unlike the second, in epidemiology and medicine a small value of the correlation coefficient does not necessarily mean a small effect size.

Conclusions: To estimate the value of r one should use the most common and officially established scales, with the exception of the strongly ‘soft’ Cohen scale. The present study can be used as a reference guide on the graduations of effect size on r for a wide variety of observation disciplines.

Key words: graduation of effect size, correlation coefficient, epidemiology, psychology

REFERENCES

1. 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.
2. Doll R. Weak associations in epidemiology: importance, detection, and interpretation. J Epidemiol. 1996;6(4 Suppl):S11-20.
3. Handbook of Epidemiology. 2nd Ed. Ed. by W. Ahrens, I. Pigeot. – New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2014. 2498 p.
4. Kudryashov YuB. Radiation Biophysics (ionizing radiation). Ed. by V.C. Mazurik, M.F. Lomanov. – M.: FIZMATLIT, 2004. 448 p. (In Russian).
5. Yarmonenko SP, Wainson AA. Radiobiology of Humans and Animals. – Moscow, Visshaya Shkola, 2004. 549 p. (In Russian).
6. Radiation Medicine. Ed. by L.A. Il’yin. In four volumes. Volume 1. Theoretical Foundations of Radiation Medicine. – Moscow: Izd. AT, 2004. 992 p. (In Russian).
7. Il’yn LA, Korenkov IP, Narkevich BYa. Radiation Hygiene. A textbook. 5th Ed, revised and added. – M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2017. 416 p. (In Russian).
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. Ed. by J. Valentin. Amsterdam – New York: Elsevier, 2007. 329 p.
11. Hill BA. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc Roy Soc Med. 1965;58(5):295-300. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814562718.
12. Glynn JR. A question of attribution. Lancet. 1993;342(8870):530-2.
13. National Research Council. Science and judgment in risk assessment. – Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994. 672 p. DOI: 10.17226/2125.
14. Merrill RM, Frankenfeld CL, Freeborne N, Mink M. Behavioral Epidemiology. Principles and Applications. – Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC, 2016. 298 p.
15. Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. Ed. by S. Loue. – New York: Springer, 2013. 157 p.
16. Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd Ed. Ed. by B.L. Strom. – Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. P. 17-30.
17. Susser M. What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. Amer J Epidemiol. 1991;133(7):635-48. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115939.
18. Evans AS. Causation and disease: The Henle-Koch postulates revisited. Yale J Biol Med. 1976;49(2);175-95.
19. 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. Radiats Biol Radioecol. (‘Radiation biology. Radioecology’, Moscow). 2019;59(1):5-36. DOI: 10.1134/S0869803119010065. (In Russian. English abstract.)
20. Blackburn H, Labarthe D. Stories from the evolution of guidelines for causal inference in epidemiologic associations: 1953-1965. Amer J Epidemiol. 2012;176(12):1071-7. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws374.
21. Schlesselman JJ. ‘Proof’ of cause and effect in epidemiologic studies: criteria for judgment. Prev Med. 1987;16(2):195-210. DOI: 10.1016/0091-7435(87)90083-1.
22. Bhopal RS. Concepts of Epidemiology: Integrated the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. 3rd Ed. – Oxford: University Press, 2016. 442 p.
23. 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).
24. Goodman SN, Samet JM. Cause and Cancer Epidemiology. In: Schottenfeld and Fraumeni Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 4th Ed. Ed. by M.J. Thun et al. – New York: Oxford University Press. Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc, USA, 2018. P. 97-104.
25. Vlasov VV. Epidemiology. 2nd Ed, rev. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2006. 464 p. (In Russian).
26. Answers. Statistics. Offset – Minsk: BSU, 2010. 38 p. (In Russian).
27. Pearson Correlation Criterion. Site Medical Statistics. http://medstatistic.ru/theory/pirson.html (Address data 2019.01.23). (In Russian).
28. Cheat Sheet by statistics. Russia, 2013. 170 p. Site StudFiles. https://studfiles.net/preview/435908/ (Address data 2019.01.26). (In Russian).
29. Schwab JJ, Schwab ME. Sociocultural Roots of Mental Illness. An Epidemiologic Survey. – New York: Springer US, 1978. 338 p.
30. Kornysheva EA, Platonov DY, Rodionov AA, Shabashov AE. Epidemiology and Statistics as Tools of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2nd Ed, revised and updated. Tver, 2009. 80 p. (In Russian).
31. Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Zubenkova ES, et al. Strength of association. Report 1. Graduation of relative risk. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):5-15. DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1adb25725023.14868717 (In Russian. English abstract.)
32. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale. – Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988. 567 p.
33. Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. Media violence and the American public. Scientific facts versus media misinformation. Amer Psychol. 2001;56(6-7):477-89. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.477.
34. 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.
35. Ferguson CJ. Everybody knows psychology is not a real science: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. Amer Psychologist. 2015;70(6):527-42. DOI: 10.1037/a0039405.
36. Epidemiology: Principles and Practical Guidelines. Ed. by J. Van den Broeck, J.R. Brestoff. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. 621 p.
37. Nesselroade KP, Grimm LG. Statistical Applications for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 2nd Ed. – New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. 930 p.
38. 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.
39. 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 Man  Strategy. 2018;9(1): 11 p. DOI: 10.5430/jms.v9n1p1.
40. 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.
41. Chaddock RE. Principles and methods of statistics. – Boston, New York, [etc.]. 1925. 471 p.
42. Bruce D, Reineke LH. Correlation alinement charts in forest research. A method of solving problems in curvilinear multiple correlation. USA Department of Agriculture, Washington. Technical Bulletin № 210. February 1931. 88 p.
43. Sturtevant AP. Quantitative demonstration of the presence of spores of Bacillus larvae in honey contaminated by contact with American foulbrood. J Agricult Res. 1936;52(9):697-704.
44. Trask PD. Relation of salinity to the calcium carbonate content of marine sediments. Professional paper 186–N. In: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper. Property of Michigan Libraies. Washington: USA Government Printing Office, 1936. P. 273-99. DOI: 10.3133/pp186N.
45. Correlation strength indicators. Site StudFiles. https://studfiles.net/preview/2404034/page:8/ (Address data 2019.01.26). (In Russian).
46. Sobolev I, Babichenko S. Application of the wavelet transform for feature extraction in the analysis of hyperspectral laser-induced fluorescence data. Int  J Remote Sensing. 2013;34(20):7218-35. DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2013.817714.
47. Buriak A, Vasylieva T, Lyeonov S. Systemically important domestic banks: an indicator-based measurement approach for the Ukrainian banking system. Prague Economic Papers. 2015;24(6):715-28. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.531.
48. Sapon N, Nikiforova A. Correlation between access to health care and stroke mortality. Ukrainian Neurosurg  J. 2016(2):54-62. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Unkhj_2016_2_9 (Address data: 02.02.2019).
49. Rouiga IR, Vladimirova ON, Belyakova GY, et al. Methodological aspects of the regional innovative development evaluation with focus on investment flows. Indian J Sci Technol. 2016;9(37): 9 p. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i37/102175.
50. Zhanatauov SU. The inverse model of multiple linear regression analysis. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science. 2018;60(4):201-12. DOI: 10.15863/TAS.
51. Gubin AV, Prudnikova OG, Kamysheva VV, et al. Clinical testing of the Russian version of the SRS-22 questionnaire for adult scoliosis patients. Hirurgia Pozvonochnika (Spine surgery). 2017;14(2):31-40. DOI: 10.14531/ss2017.2.31-40. (In Russian).
52. Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1962;65(3):145-53. DOI: 10.2307/1161884.
53. Cohen J. Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112(1):155-9. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
54. Lomax RG, Hahs-Vaughn DL. Statistical Concepts. A Second Course. 4th Ed. – New-York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2012. 516 p.
55. Divaris K, Vann WF. Jr, Baker AD, Lee JY. Examining the accuracy of caregivers’ assessments of young children’s oral health status. J Amer Dent Assoc. 2012;143(11):1237-47. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0071.
56. Neill J. Survey research & design in psychology. Lecture 4. 2018. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/f/fd/SRDP_Lecture04Handout_Correlation_6slidesperpage.pdf (Address data 2019.01.29).
57. Yavna DV, Kupriyanov IV, Bunyaeva MV. Sensory and perceptual processes: a tutorial. Under scientific. ed. V.V. Babenko. – Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Southern Federal University, 2016. 140 p. (In Russian).
58. Cohen BH, Lea RB. Essentials of Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. – Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 291 p.
59. Bakeman R, Robinson B.F. Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences. – Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. 363 p.
60. Wilcox R. Modern Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. A Practical Introduction. – CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. 840 p.
61. Aron AC. Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: A Brief Course. 5th Ed. – Pearson Education Limited, 2014. 486 p.
62. Kraska-Miller M, Nonparametric Statistic for Social and Behavioral Sciences. – CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. 232 p.
63. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 10th Ed. – Mason, OH, United States: Cengage Learning, 2017. 755 p.
64. Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, et al. Psychological testing and psychological assessment. A review of evidence and issues. Amer Psychol. 2001;56(2):128-65. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128.
65. Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. Amer Psychol. 2003;58(1):78-9. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.78.
66. Elementary Statistics. Tutorials. Effect size. Site Emory University. http://www.psychology.emory.edu/clinical/bliwise/Tutorials/SCATTER/scatterplots/effect.htm (Address data 2019.01.29).
67. Rosenthal JA. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res. 1996;21(4):37-59. 10.1300/J079v21n04_02.
68. Berry KJ, Johnston JE, Mielke PW, Jr. The Measurement of Association. A Permutation Statistical Approach. – Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2018.  647 p.
69. 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.
70. Rosenthal R. Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research: estimation and interpretation. In: Validity and Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell’s Legacy. Ed. by L. Bickman. – Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 2000;1: P. 121-39.
71. Garb HN, Klein DF, Grove WM. Comparison of medical and psychological psychological tests. Amer Psychol. 2002;57(2):137-8. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.137.
72. Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R. Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists. Canadian J   Exper  Psychol. 2003;57(3):221-37. DOI: 10.1037/h0087427.
73. Rutledge T, Loh C. Effect sizes and statistical testing in the determination of clinical significance in behavioral medicine research. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(2):138-45. DOI: 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_9.
74. Steering Committee of the Physicians Health Study Research. Group. Preliminary report: Findings from the aspirin component of the ongoing physicians’ health study. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(4):261-4. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198801283180431.
75. Steering Committee of the Physicians’ Health Study Research Group. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians’ Health Study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(3):129-35. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198907203210301.
76. Wuensch K. Cohen’s conventions for small, medium, and large effects. East Carolina University. 2009. Site University of Cambridge. MRC. Cognition and Brain Science Unite. MRC CBU Wiki. http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/ (Address data 2019.01.18); DOC: http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=esize.doc (Address data 2019.01.18).
77. Murphy KR, Myors B. Statistical Power Analysis. A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests. 2nd Ed. – New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 160 p.
78. Kline RB. Beyond Significance Testing. Statistics Reform in the Behavioral Sciences. 6th Ed. – Baltimore: United Book Press, 2013. 349 p.
79. UNSCEAR 2012. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Annex A. Attributing health effects to ionizing radiation exposure and inferring risks. – New York. 2015. 86 p.
80. Tallacchini M. Before and beyond the precautionary principle: epistemology of uncertainty in science and law. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;207(2 Suppl):645-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2004.12.029.
81. Stirling A, Coburn J. From CBA to precautionary appraisal: practical responses to intractable problems. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018;48(Suppl 1):S78-87. DOI: 10.1002/hast.823.
82. Francis T, Korns R, Voight R, et al. An evaluation of the 1954 poliomyelitis vaccine trials–Summary report. Amer J Public Health Nations Health. 1955;45(5 Pt 2):1-63. DOI: 10.1177/1740774511399110.
83. Bourne PA, Hudson-Davis A. Psychiatric induced births in Jamaica: homicide and death effects on pregnancy. Psychol Behav Sci Int J. 2016;1(1): 6 p. DOI: 10.19080/PBSIJ.2016.01.555558.
84. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69-71.
85. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte L.A. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-68. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864.
86. Rule of thumb for interpreting the size of a correlation coefficient. http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/rh232/courses/EPS525/Handouts/Correlation%20Coefficient%20Handout%20-%20Hinkle%20et %20al.pdf (Address data 2019.01.30).
87. Pearson correlation coefficient achieves value from 1. Site Int Islamic University Malaysia. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p38grr1/Pearson-correlation-coefficient-achieves-value-from-1-to-1-meaning-the (Address data 2019.01.30).
88. Kotrlik JW, Williams HA, Jabor MK. Reporting and interpreting effect size in quantitative agricultural education research. J Agricult Edu. 2011;52(1):132-42. DOI: 10.5032/jae.2011.01132.
89. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. – Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co. 1979. 479 p.
90. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 5th Ed. – Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2003. 756 p.
91. Correlation Coefficients. Applied Statistics – Lesson 5. Andrews University (Michigan). 2005. https://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/edrm611/edrm05.htm (Address data 2019.01.30).
92. Moore D. The Basic Practice of Statistics. 6th Ed. Ed. by D. Moore, W.I. Notz, M.A. Fligner. Publisher: W.H. Freeman, 2012. 989 p.
93. Rumsey DJ. Statistics For Dummies. 2nd Ed. – New York: For Dummies, 2016. 411 p.
94. Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. – Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publ. Co: An International Thomson Publ. Co, 1996. 624 p.
95. Chakkapark J, Vinitwatanakun W. The relationship between division heads’ leadership styles and teacher satisfaction at Siam Commercial College of Technology. Scholar: Hum Sci. 2017;9(1):36-47.
96. Miletic M, Vukusic M, Mausa G, Galinac T. Relationship between design and defects for software in evolution. In: Proceedings of the SQAMIA 2017: 6th Workshop of Software Quality, Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement, and Applications. Ed. by Z. Budimac. – Belgrade, Serbia, 11-13.9.2017. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1938/paper-mil.pdf (Address data 2019.01.30).
97. Gerguri D. Leader-staff relationships in Kosovo customs: leadership and its impact on customs effectiveness. Styles of Communication. 2018;10(1):108-24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327308003 (Address data 2019.01.30).
98. Pearson’s correlation. Site Statstutor. Statistics support for students. UK. www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pdf (Address data 2019.01.30).
99. Buhl A, Zofel P. SPSS Version 10. 7th revised & extended Ed. – Munchen etc: Addison Wesley Bunnel D, 2000.
100. Grjibovski AM, Ivanov SV, Gorbatova MA. Correlation analysis of data using Statistica and SPSS software. Nauka i Zdravookhranenie (Science & Healthcare). 2017(1):7-36. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/korrelyatsionnyy-analiz-dannyh-s-ispolzovaniem-programmnogo-obespecheniya-statistica-i-spss (Address data 2019.01.30). (In Russian; English abstract.)
101. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Training material. The site of K.D. Ushinsky Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University. http://yspu.org/images/1/1f/Тема_5_Коэффициенты_корреляции_Пирсона_и_Спирмена.pdf (Address data 2019.01.30). (In Russian).
102. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. In site: ‘We make statistics easy. The ultimate IBM SPSS Statistics guides’. https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/pearson-correlation-coefficient-statistical-guide.php (Address data 2019.01.30).
103. Interpreting r. CSU Department of Statistics. 2014. http://www.stat.colostate.edu/inmem/gumina/st201/pdf/Regression-Correlation.pdf (Address data 2019.01.30).
104. Karadimitriou SM. Correlation in R. Statstutor Community Project. University of Sheffield. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.536458!/file/MASH_Correlation_R.pdf (Address data 2019.01.31).
105. Gerstman BB. Correlation. StatPrimer (Version 7.0). Faculty websites inside. 2016. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/StatPrimer/correlation.pdf (Address data 2019.01.31).
106. Kharchenko MA. Correlation Analysis. Textbook for Universities. – Voronezh: Publishing and Printing Center of the Voronezh State University, 2008. 31 p. (In Russian).
107. 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 2019.02.01).
108. Bruce N, Pope D, Stanistreet D. Quantitative Methods for Health Research. A Practical Interactive Guide to Epidemiology and Statistics. 2nd Ed. – Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. 545 p.
109. Jackson SL. Statistics Plain and Simple, 2nd Ed. – Belmont, CA: Cengage/Wadsworth, 2009. 377 p.
110. Dancey CP, Reidy J. Statistics without Maths for Psychology. 4th Ed. – Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. 619 p.
111. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(3):91-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001.
112. Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap Med J. 2003;44(12):614-9.
113. 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).
114. Burnand B, Kernan WN, Feinstein AR. Indexes and boundaries for “quantitative significance” in statistical decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1273-1284. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90093-5.
115. Kline PA. Handbook of Test Construction. – London: Routledge, 1987. 250 p.
116. Kline PA. A Handbook of Test Construction. Introduction to Psychometric Design. – London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. 259 p.
117. Spearman’s Correlation. Site Statstutor. UK. http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/spearmans.pdf (Address data 2019.02.01).
118. McGhee RL, Ehrler DJ, Buckhalt JA, Phillips C. The relation between five-factor personality traits and risk-taking behavior in preadolescents. Psychology. 2012;3(8):558-61. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2012.38083.
119. Reinard JC. Communication Research Statistics. – SAGE Publications, 2006. 600 p.
120. 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. (In Russian. English abstract).
121. 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. (In Russian. English abstract).

For citation: Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Zubenkova ES, Kalininna MV, Biryukov AP, Lastochkina EM, Molodtsova DV, Wainson AA. Strength of association. Report 2. Graduation of correlation size. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):12–24. (In Russian)

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-12-24

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 5–11

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-5-11

A.I. Gorski¹, M.A. Maksiutov¹, K.A. Tumanov¹, O.K. Vlasov¹, E.V. Kochergina¹, N.S. Zelenskaya¹, S.Yu. Chekin¹, S.A. Ivanov¹, A.D. Kaprin², V.K. Ivanov¹

Analysis of Statistical Correlation between Radiation Dose and Cancer Mortality among the Population Residing in Areas Contaminated with Radionuclides after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station

1. A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. National Medical Research Radiological Center, Moscow, Russia

A.I. Gorski – Leading Researcher, PhD Tech.;
M.A. Maksiutov – Head of Dep., PhD Tech.;
K.A. Tumanov – Head of Lab., PhD Biol.;
O.K. Vlasov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Tech.;
E.V. Kochergina – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
N.S. Zelenskaya – Researcher;
S.Yu. Chekin – Head of Lab.;
S.A. Ivanov – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
A.D. Kaprin – General Director, Academician of RAS, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
V.K. Ivanov – Deputy Director for Science, Corr. Member of RAS, Dr. Sci. Tech., Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the evidence for the correlation between radiation exposure of the population following the Chernobyl accident and cancer mortality using statistical correlation.

Material and methods: Data on deaths and causes of death for the period between 1993 and 2017 were taken from the National Radiation Epidemiological Registry (NRER). The number of deaths in males is 30771 persons including 5407 cancer death, the number of deaths in females is 29033 persons including 3472 cancer death. For analysis of statistical correlation between radiation exposure and causes of death data mining algorithms free of a priori statements on probabilistic distributions of doses and diagnoses were used. Contingency tables of deaths in two dose groups: the group 0 – <0.014 Sv and the group 1 – ≥0.014 Sv; and in three age groups: group 0 – <17 years old, group 1 – 18–60 years old, group 2 – 60+ years old were used for analysis. About 90 % of individual effective doses were accumulated from 1986 till 1993. Mean effective dose is 0.024 Sv.

Results: For the population of four areas in the Russian Federation which are most contaminate after to accident on the CNPP significant association of all causes of death from cancer and for three-digit headings ICD-10 with an exposure dose was not found.

Statistically significant association between dose and pancreatic cancer (C25.9 ICD-10) and stomach cancer (С16.9) in males, stomach cancer (С16.9) and malignant neoplasms of bronchus and lungs (C34.9) in females was found. The association between dose and cancer death was demonstrated in 150–230 cases.
These diagnoses of causes of death first of all have to be a subject of more sensing and specific radiation and epidemiological analysis considering possible the confounding factors.

Conclusion: The presented method is exploratory in nature and can be used to find a direction of research necessary for making more accurate evaluation of epidemiological evidence for the correlation between dose and effect. The method may be useful for evaluation of the association between radiation exposure and pathological response (death).

Key words: population, Chernobyl accident, contamination by radionuclides, mortality, malignant neoplasms, radiation dose, radiation risk, statistical correlations, contingency tables, odds ratio

REFERENCES

1. Ivanov VK, Kaprin AD, eds. Health effects of Chernobyl: prediction and actual data 30 years after the accident. Moscow: GEOS; 2015. 450 p. (in Russian).
2. Brook GY, Bazjukin AB, Bratiliva AA, et al. Average effective exposure doses (accumulated for 1986–2016) of residents of the settlements of the Russian Federation carried to radiocontamination zones under the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 08.10.2015 No. 1074 “About the approval of the List of the settlements which are in borders of zones of a radiocontamination owing to accident on the Chernobyl NPP”. (in Russian).
3. Vlasov OK, Brook GY, Schukina NV. Development and verification of technology of reconstruction of effective exposure doses of the population of Russia after accident on the CNPP. Radiation and Risk. 2017;26(3):28-45. (in Russian).
4. Statsoft. Available from: http://www.statsoft.ru (cited 16.10.2018).
5. Piatetsky-Shapiro G. Discovery, analysis and presentation of strong rules. In: Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Frawley WJ, eds. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press: 1991: 229-48.
6. Agrawal R, Imieliński T, Swami A. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. Proc. 1993 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of data (SIGMOD’93). New York, 1993: 207-16.
7. Hahsler M. A Probabilistic Comparison of Commonly Used Interest Measures for Association Rules, 2015. Available from: http://michael.hahsler.net/research/association_rules/measures.html (cited: 16.10.2018).
8. Mietenen O.S. Confounding and effect modification. Amer J Epidemiol. 1974;100:350-53.
9. Gorski AI, Maksioutov MA, Tumanov KA, Kochergina EV, Korelo AM. Association rules for discovery relationship between mortality among Chernobyl liquidators and radiation dose. Radiation and Risk. 2018;27(1):22-32. (in Russian).
10. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health, 10th revision (ICD-10). Vol. 1 (Part 1). Geneva: WHO; 1995. 696 p. (in Russian).

For citation: Gorski AI, Maksiutov MA, Tumanov KA, Vlasov OK, Kochergina EV, Zelenskaya NS, Chekin SYu, Ivanov SA, Kaprin AD, Ivanov VK. Analysis of Statistical Correlation between Radiation Dose and Cancer Mortality among the Population Residing in Areas Contaminated with Radionuclides after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):5–11. (in Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-5-11

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 25–30

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-25-30

V.Yu. Soloviev, A.Yu. Bushmanov, V.V. Zorin, M.I. Grachev

Conceptual Approach to Creating a Complex System of Radiation Protection in the Conditions of Influence of High-Dose Fields of Ionizing Radiation

A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V.Yu. Soloviev – Head of Lab., PhD Tech., Dr. Sci. Biol.;
A.Yu. Bushmanov – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
V.V. Zorin – Leading Researcher, PhD Med.;
M.I. Grachev – Leading Researcher, PhD Med.

Abstract

The general approaches and criteria for substantiating the complex system of radiation protection (RP) of a human operator in the conditions of work in high-dose fields of ionizing radiation are considered. When planning work in such conditions, it is advisable to consider a set of measures of organizational, technical and medical nature. Each activity has its measures own limits to reduce the dose load on the human operator or the development of adverse effects of radiation, and in some cases only a combination of them can give a certain protective effect, allow to carry out the necessary activities in such conditions. If an operator works in mobile technical facilities (for example, a bulldozer, a caterpillar all-terrain vehicle, a helicopter, etc.) an important place is occupied by the issue of strengthening the technical component of the RP, primarily by engineering the design of additional shield elements. The medicobiological rationale for the optimality of such protection is given maximum protection of vital organs, in the first place, red bone marrow, a significant volume of which is concentrated in the bones in the lumbar vertebrae, sacrum and pelvis. Several examples of the performance of professional activity of operator in the conditions of high-dose ionizing radiation fields and an expert evaluation of the limiting capabilities of the technical and medical component of the integrated RP are considered.

Key words: ionizing radiation, high-doses, radiation protection, radiobiological aspects

REFERENCES

1. ICRP Publication 103. – Elsevier Ltd. 2007.
2. Radiation Safety Standards (NRB – 99/2009), SanPIN 2.6.1.2523–09, 72 p. (In Russian).
3. Saksonov PP. Anti-radiation Protection (Biological, Pharmaco-Chemical, Physical). Fundamentals of Space Biology and Medicine (Joint USSA-USA Edition). – Moscow, Nauka. 1975;3:317-48. (In Russian).
4. Bond VP, Fliedner TM, Archanbeau JO. Mammalian Radiation Lethality: a Disturbance in Cellular Kinetics – N.Y.: Academic Press, 1965.
5. Gruzdev GP, Ivanova TA, Gordeeva AA, Scherbova EN.On the Functional Mosaic of the Bone Marrow (“Pulsating Clone”). Hematol Probl. 1980;5:36-9. (In Russian).
6. Soloviev VYu, Baranov AE, Konchalovsky MV, Chistopolsky AS. Prediction of Postradiation Dynamics of Neutrophil Concentration in Human Peripheral Blood under Nonuniform Irradiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 1997;42(3):17-23. (In Russian).
7. Soloviev VYu, Baranov AE, Khamidulin TM, Zinovieva NV. Human Acute Radiation Injuries Database. Report 3. Forecasting Specifics of Postradiation Peripheral Blood Granulocyte Concentration Dynamics in Bone Marrow Syndrome, Complicated By Radiation Burns in Case of Non-uniform Body Irradiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013;58(6):30-5. (In Russian).
8. Baranov AE, Konchalovski MV, Soloviev WJu, Guskova AK. Use of Blood Cell Count Changes after Radiation Exposure in Dose Assessment and Evaluation of Bone Marrow Function. In: The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness II. Clinical Experience and Follow-up since 1979. Eds. R.C. Ricks, S.A. Fry. P. 427-43.
9. ICRP Publication 23: Reference Man: Anatomical, Physiological and Metabolic Characteristics. – Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975. 480 p.
10. ICRP Publication 110: Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. Ann. ICRP, 2009. 137 p.
11. Soloviev VYu, Khamidulin TM. Voxel Phantom Technology in Accidental Dosimetry: Perspectives. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(3):52-8. (In Russian).
12. Soloviev VYu, Kotchetkov OA, Tarasova EO, Khamidulin TM. Using Voxel Phantom Technology for Accidental Dosimetry: Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Data. ANRI. 2017;88(1):32-40. (In Russian).
13. Grebenyuk AN, Legeza VI., Milyaev AV, Starkov AV. Modern strategy of health protection and medical measures in radiation accidents. Radiation Hygiene. 2018;11(4):80-8. (In Russian).
14. Grebenyuk AN, Gladkikh VD. Modern Condition and Prospects for Development of Medicines for Prevention and Early Treatment of Radiation Injures. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2019 Jan-Feb; 59(2):132-49. (In Russian).
15. Il’yin LA, Rudny NM, Suvorov NN. Indralin, a Radioprotector of Emergency Action. Anti-radiation Properties, Pharmacology, Mechanism of Action, Clinic. – Moscow, 1994. 436 p. (In Russian).
16. Khrisanfov SA. Experimental Substantiation of the Compatibility of Various Anti-Radiation Drugs. Diss. PhD Med. – Moscow, 1987. 118 p. (In Russian).
17. Martirosov KS, Zorin VV, Grigor’ev YuG, Andrianova IE. An Experimental Study of the Role of a Blockade of Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptors and Dopamine D2 Receptors in the Mechanism of the Occurrence of Early Radiation Vomiting in Monkeys. Radiation Biology Radioecology. 2000. May-June; 40(3):277-80. (In Russian).

For citation: Soloviev VYu, Bushmanov AYu, Zorin VV, Grachev MI. Conceptual Approach to Creating a Complex System of Radiation Protection in the Conditions of Influence of High-Dose Fields of Ionizing Radiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):25–30. (In Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-25-30

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