Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28814947›Full record

ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society

Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care.

Bill Sacks, Jeffry A Siegel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  8. Radiography and Clinical Decision-Making in Chiropractic.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Review
  9. Addressing Risk Perceptions of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  10. Article
  11. It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  12. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bill SacksPostFDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Green Valley, AZ, USA.
Jeffry A SiegelNuclear Physics Enterprises, Marlton, NJ, USA.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption is over 70 years old and holds that all ionizing radiation exposure leaves cumulative effects, all of which are harmful regardless of how low the dose or dose rate is. The claimed harm centers on the risk of future radiogenic cancer. This has been shown countless times to be fallacious, and hundreds of scientific studies-both experimental and observational/epidemiological-demonstrate that at low enough doses and dose rates, ionizing radiation stimulates an evolved adaptive response and therefore is beneficial to health,

Indexed as

adaptive responselinear no-threshold (LNT)low-dose radiationradiophobia

Identifiers

PMID28814947
PMCPMC5548321
OpenAlexW2734625458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.