Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26649569›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The Increase in Animal Mortality Risk following Exposure to Sparsely Ionizing Radiation Is Not Linear Quadratic with Dose.

Benjamin M Haley, Tatjana Paunesku, David J Grdina, Gayle E Woloschak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Radiation dose rate effects: what is new and what is needed?Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Radiation databases and archives - examples and comparisons.International journal of radiation biology · 2019
    Review
  13. Funding for radiation research: past, present and future.International journal of radiation biology · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Biological basis of radiation protection needs rejuvenation.International journal of radiation biology · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin M HaleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Tatjana PauneskuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
David J GrdinaDepartments of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Gayle E WoloschakDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Radiology, and Cell and Molecular Biology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Northwestern University · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dose-Response Relationship, RadiationRadiation, IonizingRadiobiologyRisk AssessmentAnimalsHumansNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26649569
PMCPMC4674094
OpenAlexW2190134603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.