ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2013
Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of thirty-two case-control and two ecological radon studies of lung cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2018Pooled it
- Thoracic CT Angiographies in Children Using Automated Power Injection with Bolus Tracking Versus Manual Contrast Injection: Analysis of Contrast Enhancement, Image Quality and Radiation Exposure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Genotoxicity and Micronucleus Formation as a Result of Panoramic Radiography in Epithelial Cells of the Buccal Mucosa: A Cross-sectional Study in Adults.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Neurohormetic phytochemicals in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2022Review
- Hospitalizations Among Chernobyl-Exposed Immigrants to the Negev of Israel, 1992-2017: A Historical Follow-Up Study.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2022Article
- Preventative and Therapeutic Effects of Low-dose Ionizing Radiation on the Allergic Response of Rat Basophilic Leukemia Cells.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Review
- LDR-Induced miR-30a and miR-30b Target the PAI-1 Pathway to Control Adverse Effects of NSCLC Radiotherapy.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2019Article
- Turning natural adaptations to oncogenic factors into an ally in the war against cancer.Evolutionary applications · 2018Article
- Comments on "Space: The Final Frontier-Research Relevant to Mars".Health physics · 2018Article
- Cancer risk assessment in modern radiotherapy workflow with medical big data.Cancer management and research · 2018Review
- Projected cancer risks potentially related to past, current, and future practices in paediatric CT in the United Kingdom, 1990-2020.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Computed tomography and patient risk: Facts, perceptions and uncertainties.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Effect of comfort pads and incubator design on neonatal radiography.Pediatric radiology · 2016Article
- The Inhibitory Effects of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation in IgE-Mediated Allergic Responses.PloS one · 2015Article
- Point/Counterpoint: low-dose radiation is beneficial, not harmful.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Remedy for radiation fear - discard the politicized science.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014Article
- Low dose radiation adaptive protection to control neurodegenerative diseases.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014Article
- Correcting systemic deficiencies in our scientific infrastructure.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014Article
- Radiation doses from radiological imaging do not increase the risk of cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2014Article
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
The atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data have been used in the past to justify the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for estimating the carcinogenic effects of low dose radiation. An analysis of the recently updated atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality dose-response data shows that the data no longer support the LNT model but are consistent with a radiation hormesis model when a correction is applied for a likely bias in the baseline cancer mortality rate. If the validity of the phenomenon of radiation hormesis is confirmed in prospective human pilot studies, and is applied to the wider population, it could result in a considerable reduction in cancers. The idea of using radiation hormesis to prevent cancers was proposed more than three decades ago, but was never investigated in humans to determine its validity because of the dominance of the LNT model and the consequent carcinogenic concerns regarding low dose radiation. Since cancer continues to be a major health problem and the age-adjusted cancer mortality rates have declined by only ∼10% in the past 45 years, it may be prudent to investigate radiation hormesis as an alternative approach to reduce cancers. Prompt action is urged.
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.