Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31085816›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection2019

Studies of radiation health effects inform EPA actions.

David Pawel, Michael Boyd

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

David Pawel
Michael Boyd

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1970, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the responsibility to provide guidance to other federal agencies in the formulation of radiation protection standards. To carry out its federal guidance responsibilities and protect human health, the EPA must estimate risk at low doses to limit the risk of radiogenic cancers from environmental exposures. These risk estimates are based on models which conform to the linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis. A cancer risk model conforms to the LNT hypothesis if the excess risk of cancer at low doses increases approximately proportional to dose, with no threshold. Risk models with a linear-quadratic dose response can satisfy the LNT hypothesis. Based on careful review of evidence from epidemiological and radiobiological studies, authoritative scientific bodies have repeatedly endorsed the use of LNT models for estimating and regulating risk and concluded that despite uncertainties at low dose and dose rates, the LNT model remains the most practical and implementable model for radiation protection. This article describes the rationale underlying the use of LNT models for calculating risk for low dose and dose rate exposures and discusses some of the epidemiological evidence which inform on its continued use.

Identifiers

PMID31085816
PMCPMC7158982
OpenAlexW2945183577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.