ReviewWorld journal of radiology2015
Radiation signature on exposed cells: Relevance in dose estimation.
Review in World journal of radiology, 2015. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radon-Induced Radiation Biomarkers: A Scoping Review from Exposure Dosimetry to Early Biological Effects on the Lung.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Progressive breast fibrosis caused by extreme radiosensitivity: Oncocytogenetic diagnosis and treatment by reconstructive flap surgery.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Development of an automatable micro-PCC biodosimetry assay for rapid individualized risk assessment in large-scale radiological emergencies.Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis · 2018Article
- A statistical framework for radiation dose estimation with uncertainty quantification from the γ-H2AX assay.PloS one · 2018Article
- Transcriptional profile of immediate response to ionizing radiation exposure.Genomics data · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The radiation is considered as a double edged sword, as its beneficial and detrimental effects have been demonstrated. The potential benefits are being exploited to its maximum by adopting safe handling of radionuclide stipulated by the regulatory agencies. While the occupational workers are monitored by personnel monitoring devices, for general publics, it is not a regular practice. However, it can be achieved by using biomarkers with a potential for the radiation triage and medical management. An ideal biomarker to adopt in those situations should be rapid, specific, sensitive, reproducible, and able to categorize the nature of exposure and could provide a reliable dose estimation irrespective of the time of the exposures. Since cytogenetic markers shown to have many advantages relatively than other markers, the origins of various chromosomal abnormalities induced by ionizing radiations along with dose-response curves generated in the laboratory are presented. Current status of the gold standard dicentric chromosome assay, micronucleus assay, translocation measurement by fluorescence in-situ hybridization and an emerging protein marker the γ-H2AX assay are discussed with our laboratory data. With the wide choice of methods, an appropriate assay can be employed based on the net.
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.