Abstract
Contemporary radiation risk assessment predominantly depends on nonlinear parametric models, which typically include a baseline term, a dose-response term, and an effect modifier term. Despite their widespread application in estimating tumor risks, parametric models face a notable drawback: their rigid model structure can be overly restrictive, potentially introducing bias and inaccuracies into risk estimations.
In this study, we analyze data on solid tumors and leukemia from the Life Span Study (LSS) to compare the performance of deep neural network (DNN) and nonlinear parametric (NLP) models in assessing ERRs. DNN presents novel perspectives for radiation risk assessment. Our findings indicate that DNN can perform better than the traditional parametric models. Even if DNN and NLP models exhibit similar performance in predicting tumor incidence, they diverge significantly in their estimated ERRs. Standard NLP models tend to underestimate ERRs directly linked to radiation dose, overestimate ERRs for individuals at younger attained ages and ages at exposure, and underestimate ERRs for those at older attained ages. Furthermore, DNN consistently identifies radiation dose as the primary and predominant risk factor for ERRs in leukemia and solid tumors, underscoring the critical role of radiation dose in risk assessment. The insights from DNN could enhance low-dose radiation risk assessment and improve parametric model development.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan is a private, nonprofit foundation funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This research was also funded in part through the DOE award DE-HS0000031 to the National Academy of Sciences (ZL). The views of the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the two governments.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/library/data-en/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
