ArticlePloS one2015
A new approach to reduce uncertainties in space radiation cancer risk predictions.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Astronaut dose coefficients calculated using GEANT4 and comparison with ICRP123.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2025Article
- Article
- A Mission to Mars: Prediction of GCR Doses and Comparison with Astronaut Dose Limits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Considerations for practical dose equivalent assessment of space radiation and exposure risk reduction in deep space.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Flying without a Net: Space Radiation Cancer Risk Predictions without a Gamma-ray Basis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Radiation on Earth or in Space: What Does It Change?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Dose-Effects Models for Space Radiobiology: An Overview on Dose-Effect Relationships.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Influence of Microgravity on Apoptosis in Cells, Tissues, and Other Systems In Vivo and In Vitro.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- The Impact of Dose Rate on DNA Double-Strand Break Formation and Repair in Human Lymphocytes Exposed to Fast Neutron Irradiation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Expression Profile of Cell Cycle-Related Genes in Human Fibroblasts Exposed Simultaneously to Radiation and Simulated Microgravity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Review
- Role of High-Linear Energy Transfer Radiobiology in Space Radiation Exposure Risks.International journal of particle therapy · 2018Review
- Article
- Non-Targeted Effects Models Predict Significantly Higher Mars Mission Cancer Risk than Targeted Effects Models.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Evaluating biomarkers to model cancer risk post cosmic ray exposure.Life sciences in space research · 2016Review
- Relative Biological Effectiveness of HZE Particles for Chromosomal Exchanges and Other Surrogate Cancer Risk Endpoints.PloS one · 2016Article
- Adjustment of lifetime risks of space radiation-induced cancer by the healthy worker effect and cancer misclassification.Heliyon · 2015Article
- Biological Effectiveness of Accelerated Protons for Chromosome Exchanges.Frontiers in oncology · 2015Article
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 prediction of space radiation induced cancer risk carries large uncertainties with two of the largest uncertainties being radiation quality and dose-rate effects. In risk models the ratio of the quality factor (QF) to the dose and dose-rate reduction effectiveness factor (DDREF) parameter is used to scale organ doses for cosmic ray proton and high charge and energy (HZE) particles to a hazard rate for γ-rays derived from human epidemiology data. In previous work, particle track structure concepts were used to formulate a space radiation QF function that is dependent on particle charge number Z, and kinetic energy per atomic mass unit, E. QF uncertainties where represented by subjective probability distribution functions (PDF) for the three QF parameters that described its maximum value and shape parameters for Z and E dependences. Here I report on an analysis of a maximum QF parameter and its uncertainty using mouse tumor induction data. Because experimental data for risks at low doses of γ-rays are highly uncertain which impacts estimates of maximum values of relative biological effectiveness (RBEmax), I developed an alternate QF model, denoted QFγAcute where QFs are defined relative to higher acute γ-ray doses (0.5 to 3 Gy). The alternate model reduces the dependence of risk projections on the DDREF, however a DDREF is still needed for risk estimates for high-energy protons and other primary or secondary sparsely ionizing space radiation components. Risk projections (upper confidence levels (CL)) for space missions show a reduction of about 40% (CL∼50%) using the QFγAcute model compared the QFs based on RBEmax and about 25% (CL∼35%) compared to previous estimates. In addition, I discuss how a possible qualitative difference leading to increased tumor lethality for HZE particles compared to low LET radiation and background tumors remains a large uncertainty in risk estimates.
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.