Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31006050›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2019

On prognostic estimates of radiation risk in medicine and radiation protection.

Alexander Ulanowski, Jan Christian Kaiser, Uwe Schneider, Linda Walsh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexander UlanowskiInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany. a.ulanowski@iaea.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4863-4128
Jan Christian KaiserInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0359-2251
Uwe SchneiderDepartment of Physics, Science Faculty, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6403-204X
Linda WalshDepartment of Physics, Science Faculty, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7399-9191
University of Zurich · CHHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEInternational Atomic Energy Agency · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The problem of expressing cumulative detrimental effect of radiation exposure is revisited. All conventionally used and computationally complex lifetime or time-integrated risks are based on current population and health statistical data, with unknown future secular trends, that are projected far into the future. It is shown that application of conventionally used lifetime or time-integrated attributable risks (LAR, AR) should be limited to exposures under 1 Gy. More general quantities, such as excess lifetime risk (ELR) and, to a lesser extent, risk of exposure-induced death (REID), are free of dose constraints, but are even more computationally complex than LAR and AR and rely on the unknown total radiation effect on demographic and health statistical data. Appropriate assessment of time-integrated risk of a specific outcome following high-dose (more than 1 Gy) exposure requires consideration of competing risks for other radiation-attributed outcomes and the resulting ELR estimate has an essentially non-linear dose response. Limitations caused by basing conventionally applied time-integrated risks on current population and health statistical data are that they are: (a) not well suited for risk estimates for atypical groups of exposed persons not readily represented by the general population; and (b) not optimal for risk projections decades into the future due to large uncertainties in developments of the future secular trends in the population-specific disease rates. Alternative disease-specific quantities, baseline and attributable survival fractions, based on reduction of survival chances are considered here and are shown to be very useful in circumventing most aspects of these limitations. Another main quantity, named as radiation-attributed decrease of survival (RADS), is recommended here to represent cumulative radiation risk conditional on survival until a certain age. RADS, historically known in statistical literature as "cumulative risk", is only based on the radiation-attributed hazard and is insensitive to competing risks. Therefore, RADS is eminently suitable for risk projections in emergency situations and for estimating radiation risks for persons exposed after therapeutic or interventional medical applications of radiation or in other highly atypical groups of exposed persons, such as astronauts.

Indexed as

Radiation ProtectionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPrognosisRadiation ExposureRadiation InjuriesRadiobiologyRisk AssessmentSurvival AnalysisCumulative riskLifetime riskMedical use of radiationRadiation exposureRadiation protectionRisk assessmentRisk projections

Identifiers

PMID31006050
PMCPMC6609593
OpenAlexW2936888623

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.