ReviewJournal of radiation research2014
Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural networks inference from atomic bomb survivors.
Review in Journal of radiation research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation makes cells select the form of death dependent on external or internal exposure: apoptosis or pyroptosis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Transcriptomic Profiling and Pathway Analysis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Following Low Dose-Rate Radiation Exposure.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast.Archives of toxicology · 2020Review
- Autoradiographic analysis of internal plutonium radiation exposure in Nagasaki atomic bomb victims.Heliyon · 2018Article
- Ionizing radiation exposure: hazards, prevention, and biomarker screening.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Up-regulation of calreticulin in mouse liver tissues after long-term irradiation with low-dose-rate gamma rays.PloS one · 2017Article
- Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2016Review
- Low dose radiation risks for women surviving the a-bombs in Japan: generalized additive model.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2016Article
- Neutron relative biological effectiveness in Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors: a critical review.Journal of radiation research · 2016Review
- A message to Fukushima: nothing to fear but fear itself.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2016Article
- 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
- Radiation doses from radiological imaging do not increase the risk of cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2014Article
- Donor-specific cell-based assays in studying sensitivity to low-dose radiation: a population-based perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2014Review
- The Scoliosis Quandary: Are Radiation Exposures From Repeated X-Rays Harmful?Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Atomic Bomb Survivors Life-Span Study: Insufficient Statistical Power to Select Radiation Carcinogenesis Model.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Article
- It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation remains poorly defined because of ambiguity in the quantitative link to doses below 0.2 Sv in atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki arising from limitations in the statistical power and information available on overall radiation dose. To deal with these difficulties, a novel nonparametric statistics based on the 'integrate-and-fire' algorithm of artificial neural networks was developed and tested in cancer databases established by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. The analysis revealed unique features at low doses that could not be accounted for by nominal exposure dose, including (i) the presence of a threshold that varied with organ, gender and age at exposure, and (ii) a small but significant bumping increase in cancer risk at low doses in Nagasaki that probably reflects internal exposure to (239)Pu. The threshold was distinct from the canonical definition of zero effect in that it was manifested as negative excess relative risk, or suppression of background cancer rates. Such a unique tissue response at low doses of radiation exposure has been implicated in the context of the molecular basis of radiation-environment interplay in favor of recently emerging experimental evidence on DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice and its epigenetic memory by histone marking.
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.