Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30263019›Full record

ReviewDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues.

Alexander Vaiserman, Alexander Koliada, Oksana Zabuga, Yehoshua Socol

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Low-dose ionizing radiation and adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Selenium-Containing Compounds in Breast Cancer Therapy.Biological trace element research · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 countries.

Alexander VaisermanInstitute of Gerontology, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Alexander KoliadaInstitute of Gerontology, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Oksana ZabugaInstitute of Gerontology, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Yehoshua SocolJerusalem College of Technology, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-4167-248X
D.F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology · UAJerusalem College of Technology · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.

Indexed as

disease riskhormesislinear no-threshold modellongevitylow-dose radiationmortality

Identifiers

PMID30263019
PMCPMC6149023
OpenAlexW2889605858

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.