Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24162058›Full record

ArticleHealth physics2013

Assessment of biodosimetry methods for a mass-casualty radiological incident: medical response and management considerations.

Julie M Sullivan, Pataje G S Prasanna, Marcy B Grace, Lynne K Wathen, Rodney L Wallace, John F Koerner, C Norman Coleman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health physics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Microfluidic Isolation of Aptamers for Intracellular Measurement of Radio-Responsive Proteins.Radiation (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development of high-throughput systems for biodosimetry.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Establishment ofHeliyon · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Julie M Sullivan*Office of Emergency Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; †AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Washington DC; ‡Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; §Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Pataje G S Prasanna
Marcy B Grace
Lynne K Wathen
Rodney L Wallace
John F Koerner
C Norman Coleman
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority · USNational Cancer Institute · USOffice of Readiness and Response · USOffice of Science and Technology Policy · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS Y99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following a mass-casualty nuclear disaster, effective medical triage has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. In order to best use the available scarce resources, there is an urgent need for biodosimetry tools to determine an individual's radiation dose. Initial triage for radiation exposure will include location during the incident, symptoms, and physical examination. Stepwise triage will include point of care assessment of less than or greater than 2 Gy, followed by secondary assessment, possibly with high throughput screening, to further define an individual's dose. Given the multisystem nature of radiation injury, it is unlikely that any single biodosimetry assay can be used as a standalone tool to meet the surge in capacity with the timeliness and accuracy needed. As part of the national preparedness and planning for a nuclear or radiological incident, the authors reviewed the primary literature to determine the capabilities and limitations of a number of biodosimetry assays currently available or under development for use in the initial and secondary triage of patients. Understanding the requirements from a response standpoint and the capability and logistics for the various assays will help inform future biodosimetry technology development and acquisition. Factors considered include: type of sample required, dose detection limit, time interval when the assay is feasible biologically, time for sample preparation and analysis, ease of use, logistical requirements, potential throughput, point-of-care capability, and the ability to support patient diagnosis and treatment within a therapeutically relevant time point.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsRadioactive Hazard ReleaseBiological AssayBiomarkersBiophysical PhenomenaChromosomes, HumanCytogenetic AnalysisCytokinesisDNA DamageHematologyHumansLymphocytesMicronucleus TestsMicroRNAsNeutrophilsRadiometryBiomarkersMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID24162058
PMCPMC3810609
OpenAlexW2022117623

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.