Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28865516›Full record

ReviewSeminars in radiation oncology2017

Radiation Toxicity in the Central Nervous System: Mechanisms and Strategies for Injury Reduction.

DeeDee Smart

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in radiation oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

DeeDee SmartRadiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: smartd@mail.nih.gov.
National Cancer Institute · US

Funding

CNS sirtuins in radiation-induced vascular permeability and neurodegenerationZIABC011222 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI SMART, DEEDEE · 2009 to 2025
$11.1M
Neuropsychological outcome measures in patients receiving whole brain radiationZIABC011333 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI SMART, DEEDEE · 2010 to 2025
$4.6M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC011222
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for radiation-induced toxicities in the brain produces significant anxiety, both among patients receiving radiation therapy and those radiation oncologists providing treatment. These concerns often play a significant role in the medical decision-making process for most patients with diseases in which radiotherapy may be a treatment consideration. Although the precise mechanisms of neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration after ionizing radiation exposure continue to be poorly understood from a biological perspective, there is an increasing body of scientific and clinical literature that is producing a better understanding of how radiation causes brain injury; factors that determine whether toxicities occur; and potential preventative, treatment, and mitigation strategies for patients at high risk or with symptoms of injury. This review will focus primarily on injuries and biological processes described in mature brain.

Indexed as

BrainDecision MakingHumansRadiation ExposureRadiation Injuries

Identifiers

PMID28865516
PMCPMC5657507
OpenAlexW2752507303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.