ArticleJournal of radiation research2019
Investigation of the cumulative number of chromosome aberrations induced by three consecutive CT examinations in eight patients.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation effects of a CT scan on chromosomal aberrations in cancer and non-cancer patients.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Occupational radiation exposure indicated by increased chromosomal damage in lymphocytes of orthopaedic surgeons in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Combined biological effects of CBCT and therapeutic X-ray dose on chromosomal aberrations of lymphocytes.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- No increase in translocated chromosomal aberrations, an indicator of ionizing radiation exposure, in childhood thyroid cancer in Fukushima Prefecture.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Impact of a new deep-learning-based reconstruction algorithm on image quality in ultra-high-resolution CT: clinical observational and phantom studies.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Cytogenetic Effects in Patients after Computed Tomography Examination.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic value of deep learning reconstruction for radiation dose reduction at abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our previous study, we found that chromosomes were damaged by the radiation exposure from a single computed tomography (CT) examination, based on an increased number of dicentric chromosomes (Dics) formed in peripheral blood lymphocytes after a CT examination. We then investigated whether a cumulative increase in the frequency of Dics and chromosome translocations (Trs) formation could be observed during three consecutive CT examinations performed over the course of 3-4 years, using lymphocytes in peripheral bloods of eight patients (five males and three females; age range 27-77 years; mean age, 64 years). The effective radiation dose per CT examination estimated from the computational dosimetry system was 22.0-73.5 mSv, and the average dose per case was 40.5 mSv. The frequency of Dics formation significantly increased after a CT examination and tended to decrease before the next examination. Unlike Dics analysis, we found no significant increase in the frequency of Trs formation before and after the CT examination, and we observed no tendency for the frequency to decrease before the next CT examination. The frequency of Trs formation was higher than that of Dics formation regardless of CT examination. Furthermore, neither analysis of Dics nor Trs showed a cumulative increase in the frequency of formation following three consecutive CT examinations.
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.