Dose estimates and their uncertainties for use in epidemiological studies of radiation-exposed populations in the Russian Southern Urals

Elena A. Shishkina; Bruce A. Napier; Dale L. Preston; Marina O. Degteva

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288479

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 18, 2023
12 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Tim A. Mousseau, Editor PONE-D-23-01650Dose uncertainties for radiation epidemiology: research experience in the Urals regioPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Napier, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I have finally received two expert reviews and both are positive. Congratulations! We are almost there. Both reviews have made a handful of very small edits that should be addressed. Please take care of these asap and we will move the ms to the next step. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tim A. Mousseau Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "EAS: Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia Contract N◦ 27.501.19.2 in the framework of Russian Federal Targeted Program “Provision of nuclear and radiation safety for the period 2016-2020 and for the period up to 2030”. http://government.ru/en/department/497/ BAN: PNNL Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830, (US Department of Energy), Project JCCRER DOSE RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE URALS, Budget and Reporting Number HS0240030, https://www.energy.gov/ehss/international-health-studies-and-activities DLP: University of Southern California Prime Award # DE-HS0000091 (US Department of Energy), Project Epidemiological and Biostatistical Assistance for Project 2.2 Mayak Worker Cancer Mortality and for Project 1.2 Techa River Cohort Cancer mortality and Incidence, USC Subaward 122032572 – Mod 3, https://keck.usc.edu/ MOD: Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia Contract N◦ 27.501.19.2 in the framework of Russian Federal Targeted Program “Provision of nuclear and radiation safety for the period 2016-2020 and for the period up to 2030”. http://government.ru/en/department/497/ (deceased)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper considers dose uncertainties in the TRDS-2016MC. Individual doses from external and internal radiation sources were reconstructed for 48,036 people based on environmental contamination patterns, residential histories, individual 90Sr body-burden measurements and dietary intakes. The paper is very well and clearly written and will present substantial interest to PLOS One audience. I have comments and suggestions (please see attached file) that, I believe, will help to improve the manuscript. Reviewer #2: This is an impressive piece of work. I have only suggestions for minor revisions, which are included in the accompanying annotated manuscript. I look forward to epidemiological analyses that incorporate the dosimetry uncertainties described in the manuscript. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-01650_reviewer - comments.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE Mar23 (comments).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288479.r001
Revision 1
14 Jun 2023 Author Response Both reviewers provided their comments on pdf copies of the submitted file. In what follows we refer to the page numbers lines numbers provided by the manuscript management software and the page numbers in the manuscript file that we provided. Reviewer 1 We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the helpful comments. As indicated below, we have made the suggested corrections and, as necessary, revised the text to address the reviewer’s concerns. We appreciate the suggested references and have cited them in the revised text. Page 3 Lines 70- 71 : the text was modified to read “underestimation of the risk estimate uncertainty” Page 4 FPSGV-HU9YN-9EH6Q-SE7LX-47HXCPage 5 Line 103: “Techa River Dosimetry System” is deleted and replaced by TRDS-2016 Line 106 : In general, there are currently no guidelines for setting the number of realizations in a MC dosimetry system. However, in this case the number was chosen in part because of the number of parameters in the dose uncertainty model and the requirement of at least one realization per parameter for the Latin hypercube sampling algorithm used . Line 110: changed as suggested to TRC and EURT Pages 6-7 Lines 123-124 Omitted the phrase for 23 organs … as 67 years as suggested. Lines 144 -149 Omit bullets also drop “while” at beginning of line 149 Line 151 Corrected text to I_y^( _ ^90 Sr ) as in Eqn 1 Line 159 The reference to ONIS was dropped since this level of detail is of no detail almost all readers. Pages 9 10 Lines 201-207 & 225-226 replaced -with “is” as requested Line 226 The text was corrected to read “is a conversion factor from” … Page 11 Line 236 Equation 5 was corrected as suggested Line 239 The text was modified to read “this parameter has the same value as for the Techa River” Line 240-241 “the same as for the Techa River “is deleted” Line 242 We have added a short description of how the individual and population statistics were computed where the population and individual statistics are first discussed (line 309) and in the notes to Tables 2 and 3. Line 250 “..for both internal and external exposure” was added as suggested Page 12 Lines 258 and 260 reworded to be more direct along the lines suggested Line 272 (Table 1) .The table has been modified. Page 17 Line 294 Changed to acronyms, as suggested. Lines 309 & 311 We have added information on the meaning of population and individual statistics here and in the notes to Tables 2 and 3.. Line 314 We have now given the median with two significant digits. Page 18 line 327 We modified the text to indicate that the short-lived radionuclides include all radionuclides other than 137Cs. Page 22 Lines 414 & 416 Replaced 25th percentiles with medians (18 and 174) Page 28 Line 546+(Table 4) We have revised the table title and added notes explaining the difference between population and individual statistics. Page 33-34. Line 677+ and 699 (Table 6) References and medians updated as suggested. Reviewer 2 We are grateful for the positive comments, the suggested corrections and references. We have revised the text to address all of the issues raised. Page 2. Line 24. Changed to “Russian Southern Urals” Page 4. Line 79 Changed to “… populations of the Russian Southern Urals …” Line 83 And 85. The suggested references were added. Line 84 added (sometimes called the “Kyshtym Accident”) (which is somewhat ironic since the accident occurred at Mayak and Kyshtym was not really in the contaminated area) Page 5. Line 117. Changed to “bone marrow” Page 6 Lines 135-136 modified to Techa River internal exposures Page 9. Line 191 modified to Techa River External exposures Page 13. Line 284 changed to active bone marrow Page 14. Line 288 Changed to Techa River Dosimetry System (TRDS) Page 25 Line 452 AM changed to active bone marrow Page 34 Line 695 change to non-iodine Page 35 Line 752 changed to … contamination resulting from Mayak operations and fallout deposition in the EURT resulting from the 1957 Mayak waste storage tank explosion Page 38 Lines 829 and 832 Suggested references were added Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: TRDS2016 Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288479.r002
28 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Tim A. Mousseau, Editor Dose estimates and their uncertainties for use in epidemiological studies of radiation-exposed populations in the Russian Southern Urals PONE-D-23-01650R1 Dear Bruce, Sorry for the short delay. I am just back from a month's field work in the polygon and Chernobyl.... We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. This is an important piece of work and I congratulate you on carrying it through. Personally, being geographically oriented, I would have included a simple map showing the study region in relation to some of the other key sites and cities in the region. But perhaps this is just me! Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Tim A. Mousseau Academic Editor PLOS ONE Professor of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288479.r003
Formally Accepted
31 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Tim A. Mousseau, Editor PONE-D-23-01650R1 Dose estimates and their uncertainties for use in epidemiological studies of radiation-exposed populations in the Russian Southern Urals. Dear Dr. Napier: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tim A. Mousseau Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288479.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .