ArticleHealth physics2018
Reflections on Basic Science Studies Involving Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation.
Article in Health physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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
- Gene expression for biodosimetry and effect prediction purposes: promises, pitfalls and future directions - key session ConRad 2021.International journal of radiation biology · 2022Article
- Recent advances in radiobiology with respect to pleiotropic aspects of tissue reaction.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Letter: Evaluating the Cumulative Impact of Ionizing Radiation Exposure With Diagnostic Genetics.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Investigation of health effects of low doses of radiation as a field of study has been riddled with difficulties since its inception. In this document we will use 100 mGy as the cutoff upper limit for low-dose radiation, borrowing this definition from the U.S. Department of Energy, although other agencies and researchers sometimes include up to five-fold higher doses under the same title. Difficulties in this area of research are most often ascribed to the fact that effects of low doses of radiation are subtle and difficult to distinguish from the plethora of other low-grade stresses. Thus, for example, most epidemiological studies include hundreds of thousands of samples and generate risk estimates that are statistically meaningful only when they are considered on a scale of hundreds or thousands of people. A logical approach to remedy the situation for low-dose research was to conduct well-controlled animal studies with hundreds of animals; nevertheless, even after many such studies were completed, our understanding of the biological basis for risk from low-dose radiation exposure is still not conclusive. In this paper we argue that the problem lies in the fact that our approach to animal studies is not comprehensive but conceptually binary. While some researchers apply epidemiological models to animal data, others look into molecular and cellular biology only. Very few studies are conducted to bridge this gap and consider how a realistic model of DNA damage could be integrated into a realistic model of radiation carcinogenesis.
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.