Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14557801›Full record

ArticleOncogene2003

Genomic instability and bystander effects: a historical perspective.

John B Little

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncogene, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 208 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Boron neutron capture therapy: Current status and future perspectives.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Carcinogenesis Induced by Low-dose Radiation.Radiology and oncology · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Delayed Numerical Chromosome Aberrations in Human Fibroblasts by Low Dose of Radiation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John B LittleLaboratory of Radiobiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115, USA. jlittle@hsph.harvard.edu
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data have been emerging over the past two decades concerning two phenomena in which important biological effects of ionizing radiation arise in cells that in themselves receive no radiation exposure. In the first, radiation-induced genomic instability, biological effects occur in the progeny of the irradiated cell after many generations of cell division. In the second, radiation-induced bystander effects, they arise in cells that receive no radiation exposure as a consequence of damage signals transmitted from neighboring irradiated cells; transmission may be mediated either by direct intercellular communication through gap junctions, or by factors released into the surrounding medium. In both phenomena, the biological effects appear to be associated with an upregulation of oxidative metabolism. The present paper is designed to review the historical background leading to our current knowledge of these two phenomena, and to indicate some future directions for research that will allow us to assess better their importance in the health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.

Indexed as

Genomic InstabilityAnimalsBystander EffectDNAHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansRadiobiologyDNA

Identifiers

PMID14557801
OpenAlexW2029224024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.