Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30744204›Full record

ReviewCancers2019

Mechanistic Modelling of Radiation Responses.

Stephen J McMahon, Kevin M Prise

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Monte Carlo methods to assess biological response to radiation in peripheral organs and in critical organs near the target.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Stephen J McMahonCentre for Cancer Research & Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK. Stephen.mcmahon@qub.ac.uk.
Kevin M PriseCentre for Cancer Research & Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK. k.prise@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiobiological modelling has been a key part of radiation biology and therapy for many decades, and many aspects of clinical practice are guided by tools such as the linear-quadratic model. However, most of the models in regular clinical use are abstract and empirical, and do not provide significant scope for mechanistic interpretation or making predictions in novel cell lines or therapies. In this review, we will discuss the key areas of ongoing mechanistic research in radiation biology, including physical, chemical, and biological steps, and review a range of mechanistic modelling approaches which are being applied in each area, highlighting the possible opportunities and challenges presented by these techniques.

Indexed as

Cell DeathDNA repairMathematical ModellingMechanistic ModellingRadiationRadiobiologyTrack Structure

Identifiers

PMID30744204
PMCPMC6406300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.