ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2012
The new radiobiology: returning to our roots.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk and Safety in Radiographic Utilization: Evaluating the Evidence From Current Research.Radiology research and practice · 2025Review
- Cancer immunotherapy: how low-level ionizing radiation can play a key role.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2017Review
- Commentary: ethical issues of current health-protection policies on low-dose ionizing radiation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014Article
- Special issue introduction.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2012Article
- Influence of A Continuous Very Low Dose of Gamma-Rays on Cell Proliferation, Apoptosis and Oxidative Stress.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Multiple Organ Lesions in a Case of Contamination With Multiple Radionuclides After 38 Years.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Some Epidemiologic Studies of Low-Dose-Radiation Cancer Risks Are Misinforming.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- The Linear-No-Threshold Line for Cancer Excess Relative Risk Based on Lagging Low Radiation Doses is Misleading.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Radiophobia Harm, Its Main Cause, and a Proposed Solution.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2005, two expert advisory bodies examined the evidence on the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. The U.S. National Research Council concluded that current scientific evidence is consistent with the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship (NRCNA 2005) while the French National Academies of Science and Medicine concluded the opposite (Aurengo et al. 2005). These contradictory conclusions may stem in part from an emphasis on epidemiological data (a "top down" approach) versus an emphasis on biological mechanisms (a "bottom up" approach). In this paper, the strengths and limitations of the top down and bottom up approaches are discussed, and proposals for strengthening and reconciling them are suggested. The past seven years since these two reports were published have yielded increasing evidence of nonlinear responses of biological systems to low radiation doses delivered at low dose-rates. This growing body of evidence is casting ever more doubt on the extrapolation of risks observed at high doses and dose-rates to estimate risks associated with typical environmental and occupational exposures. This paper compares current evidence on low dose, low dose-rate effects against objective criteria of causation. Finally, some questions for a post-LNT world are posed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.