Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23903347›Full record

ReviewRadiation and environmental biophysics2013

A review of non-cancer effects, especially circulatory and ocular diseases.

Mark P Little

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Radiation and circulatory disease.Mutation research. Reviews in mutation research
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Ocular radiation exposure is negligible in normal volume endourological practice.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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.

Mark P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive MSC 9778, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9778, USA, mark.little@nih.gov.

Funding

Studies of Populations Exposed to Environmental Sources of RadiationZIACP010132 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI CAHOON, ELIZABETH · 2009 to 2025
$35.2M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a well-established association between high doses (>5 Gy) of ionizing radiation exposure and damage to the heart and coronary arteries, although only recently have studies with high-quality individual dosimetry been conducted that would enable quantification of this risk adjusting for concomitant chemotherapy. The association between lower dose exposures and late occurring circulatory disease has only recently begun to emerge in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in various occupationally exposed cohorts and is still controversial. Excess relative risks per unit dose in moderate- and low-dose epidemiological studies are somewhat variable, possibly a result of confounding and effect modification by well-known (but unobserved) risk factors. Radiation doses of 1 Gy or more are associated with increased risk of posterior subcapsular cataract. Accumulating evidence from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, Chernobyl liquidators, US astronauts, and various other exposed groups suggests that cortical cataracts may also be associated with ionizing radiation, although there is little evidence that nuclear cataracts are radiogenic. The dose-response appears to be linear, although modest thresholds (of no more than about 0.6 Gy) cannot be ruled out. A variety of other non-malignant effects have been observed after moderate/low-dose exposure in various groups, in particular respiratory and digestive disease and central nervous system (and in particular neuro-cognitive) damage. However, because these are generally only observed in isolated groups, or because the evidence is excessively heterogeneous, these associations must be treated with caution.

Indexed as

Radiation InjuriesAnimalsCardiovascular DiseasesEndpoint DeterminationEye DiseasesHumansNuclear WeaponsOccupational Exposure

Identifiers

PMID23903347
PMCPMC4074546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.