8 ms·
> Reducing radiation from CT scans is a noble cause on its own Is it? Linear No Threshold has largely been rejected at this point. https://jnm.snmjournals.org/
by cornstalks 3mo ago
> Reducing radiation from CT scans is a noble cause on its own
Is it? Linear No Threshold has largely been rejected at this point. https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2024/06/21/jnumed.124.267868 https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2024/06/21/jnumed....
- adastra22 3mo agoWe have no evidence in favor of the linear no threshold model. That is not the same as saying that we have evidence against it.
- arcticbull 3mo agoSure but we don’t prove negatives for a reason - it’s impossible. We assume the null hypothesis.
- unholiness 3mo agoLNT is the null hypothesis. No one disagrees a linear model fits the data very well in high doses. If you want to argue that model doesn't work in low doses, you need a model with more parameters and sufficient data to fit it. The issue is that, at these low doses we want to differentiate, we're also looking at effect sizes that are hard to separate from noise, and sampling biases that are hard to erase. There's still lively and ongoing debate.
- looofooo0 3mo agoWell problem is that humans are so noisy through lifestyle, enviroment and genes that any proof for either is really hard.
- unholiness 3mo agoAnother problem is that there haven't been natural experiments in low dose exposures the way there unfortunately have been for high dose exposures.
- haldujai 3mo agoThere is some evidence for hormesis - but yes no model is proven right now. LNT is the most conservative model and part of why it sticks around. A good primer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/
- looofooo0 3mo agoLNT does also damage, as people refusing necessary CT scans or countries switching of nuclear power because of fear.
- dooglius 3mo agoYour link does not support, and in fact refutes, your claim
- KaiserPro 3mo agoWeekly CTs are going to give you cancer