ArticlePloS one2015
The Increase in Animal Mortality Risk following Exposure to Sparsely Ionizing Radiation Is Not Linear Quadratic with Dose.
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 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, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mathematical model assuming frequency-dependent cost for analyzing the influence of cell competition on radiation effects.PloS one · 2025Article
- Establishment and activity of the planning and acting network for low dose radiation research in Japan (PLANET): 2016-2023.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- Modifiers of radiation effects on breast cancer incidence revealed by a reanalysis of archival data of rat experiments.Journal of radiation research · 2023Article
- Molecular and cellular basis of the dose-rate-dependent adverse effects of radiation exposure in animal models. Part II: Hematopoietic system, lung and liver.Journal of radiation research · 2023Review
- Molecular and cellular basis of the dose-rate-dependent adverse effects of radiation exposure in animal models. Part I: Mammary gland and digestive tract.Journal of radiation research · 2023Review
- The Evidence for Excess Risk of Cancer and Non-Cancer Disease at Low Doses and Dose Rates.Radiation research · 2022Article
- Radiation dose rate effects: what is new and what is needed?Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2022Review
- Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses.Environment international · 2022Review
- Methodological improvements to meta-analysis of low dose rate studies and derivation of dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021Article
- Brain Damage and Patterns of Neurovascular Disorder after Ionizing Irradiation. Complications in Radiotherapy and Radiation Combined Injury.Radiation research · 2021Review
- Article
- Radiation databases and archives - examples and comparisons.International journal of radiation biology · 2019Review
- Funding for radiation research: past, present and future.International journal of radiation biology · 2019Review
- THE DOSE AND DOSE-RATE EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR (DDREF).Health physics · 2019Article
- Typical doses and dose rates in studies pertinent to radiation risk inference at low doses and low dose rates.Journal of radiation research · 2018Review
- Dose and dose rate extrapolation factors for malignant and non-malignant health endpoints after exposure to gamma and neutron radiation.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2017Article
- Biological basis of radiation protection needs rejuvenation.International journal of radiation biology · 2017Review
- Dose and dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2015Article
- The LNT Model and ALARA in Diagnostic Imaging: A Critical Review of Scientific Evidence in the Low-Dose Range.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe US government regulates allowable radiation exposures relying, in large part, on the seventh report from the committee to estimate the Biological Effect of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), which estimated that most contemporary exposures- protracted or low-dose, carry 1.5 fold less risk of carcinogenesis and mortality per Gy than acute exposures of atomic bomb survivors. This correction is known as the dose and dose rate effectiveness factor for the life span study of atomic bomb survivors (DDREFLSS). It was calculated by applying a linear-quadratic dose response model to data from Japanese atomic bomb survivors and a limited number of animal studies. METHODS AND
resultsWe argue that the linear-quadratic model does not provide appropriate support to estimate the risk of contemporary exposures. In this work, we re-estimated DDREFLSS using 15 animal studies that were not included in BEIR VII's original analysis. Acute exposure data led to a DDREFLSS estimate from 0.9 to 3.0. By contrast, data that included both acute and protracted exposures led to a DDREFLSS estimate from 4.8 to infinity. These two estimates are significantly different, violating the assumptions of the linear-quadratic model, which predicts that DDREFLSS values calculated in either way should be the same.
conclusionsTherefore, we propose that future estimates of the risk of protracted exposures should be based on direct comparisons of data from acute and protracted exposures, rather than from extrapolations from a linear-quadratic model. The risk of low dose exposures may be extrapolated from these protracted estimates, though we encourage ongoing debate as to whether this is the most valid approach. We also encourage efforts to enlarge the datasets used to estimate the risk of protracted exposures by including both human and animal data, carcinogenesis outcomes, a wider range of exposures, and by making more radiobiology data publicly accessible. We believe that these steps will contribute to better estimates of the risks of contemporary radiation exposures.
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.