ReviewFrontiers in oncology2016
Personalized Cancer Risk Assessments for Space Radiation Exposures.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical considerations for the age of non-governmental space exploration.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Considering clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential in space radiation risk analysis for hematologic cancers and cardiovascular disease.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Towards sustainable human space exploration-priorities for radiation research to quantify and mitigate radiation risks.NPJ microgravity · 2023Review
- Multivariate piecewise linear regression model to predict radiosensitivity using the association with the genome-wide copy number variation.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Age and sex effects across the blood proteome after ionizing radiation exposure can bias biomarker screening and risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- PolyRad - Protection Against Free Radical Damage.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Mutational signatures in tumours induced by high and low energy radiation in Trp53 deficient mice.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Space Radiation Biology for "Living in Space".BioMed research international · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals differ in their susceptibility to radiogenic cancers, and there is evidence that this inter-individual susceptibility extends to HZE ion-induced carcinogenesis. Three components of individual risk: sex, age at exposure, and prior tobacco use, are already incorporated into the NASA cancer risk model used to determine safe days in space for US astronauts. Here, we examine other risk factors that could potentially be included in risk calculations. These include personal and family medical history, the presence of pre-malignant cells that could undergo malignant transformation as a consequence of radiation exposure, the results from phenotypic assays of radiosensitivity, heritable genetic polymorphisms associated with radiosensitivity, and postflight monitoring. Inclusion of these additional risk or risk reduction factors has the potential to personalize risk estimates for individual astronauts and could influence the determination of safe days in space. We consider how this type of assessment could be used and explore how the provisions of the federal Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act could impact the collection, dissemination and use of this information by NASA.
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.