ReviewPediatric radiology2014
From 'Image Gently' to image intelligently: a personalized perspective on diagnostic radiation risk.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commentary on Westra et al. "Cumulative dose in pediatric CT "frequent flyers": cohort results and risk review".Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- CT radiation exposure and cancer risk: from knowing to acting.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for pediatric pulmonary nodule detection on chest computed tomography: comparison of simulated lower radiation doses.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Person Centered Care and Personalized Medicine: Irreconcilable Opposites or Potential Companions?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
- Pediatric providers and radiology examinations: knowledge and comfort levels regarding ionizing radiation and potential complications of imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Letting go of what we believe about radiation and the risk of cancer in children.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
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 risk of ionizing radiation from diagnostic imaging has been a popular topic in the radiology literature and lay press. Communicating the magnitude of risk to patients and caregivers is problematic because of the uncertainty in estimates derived principally from epidemiological studies of large populations, and alternative approaches are needed to provide a scientific basis for personalized risk estimates. The underlying patient disease and life expectancy greatly influence risk projections. Research into the biological mechanisms of radiation-induced DNA damage and repair challenges the linear no-threshold dose-response assumption and reveals that individuals vary in sensitivity to radiation. Studies of decision-making psychology show that individuals are highly susceptible to irrational biases when judging risks. Truly informed medical decision-making that respects patient autonomy requires appropriate framing of radiation risks in perspective with other risks and with the benefits of imaging. To follow the principles of personalized medicine and treat patients according to their specific phenotypic and personality profiles, diagnostic imaging should optimally be tailored not only to patient size, body region and clinical indication, but also to underlying disease conditions, radio-sensitivity and risk perception and preferences that vary among individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25304703What 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.