ReviewHealth physics2020
Scientific and Logistical Considerations When Screening for Radiation Risks by Using Biodosimetry Based on Biological Effects of Radiation Rather than Dose: The Need for Prior Measurements of Homogeneity and Distribution of Dose.
Review in Health physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Cell Sequencing: An Emerging Tool for Biomarker Development in Nuclear Emergencies and Radiation Oncology.Cancers · 2025Review
- Radiation Biological Toximetry Using Circulating Cell-Free DNA (cfDNA) for Rapid Radiation/Nuclear Triage.Radiation research · 2024Article
- Benefits and challenges of in vivo EPR nail biodosimetry in a second tier of medical triage in response to a large radiation event.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2023Review
- Neuroprotective agents effective against radiation damage of central nervous system.Neural regeneration research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
An effective medical response to a large-scale radiation event requires prompt and effective initial triage so that appropriate care can be provided to individuals with significant risk for severe acute radiation injury. Arguably, it would be advantageous to use injury rather than radiation dose for the initial assessment; i.e., use bioassays of biological damage. Such assays would be based on changes in intrinsic biological response elements; e.g., up- or down-regulation of genes, proteins, metabolites, blood cell counts, chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, micro-RNA, cytokines, or transcriptomes. Using a framework to evaluate the feasibility of biodosimetry for triaging up to a million people in less than a week following a major radiation event, Part 1 analyzes the logistical feasibility and clinical needs for ensuring that biomarkers of organ-specific injury could be effectively used in this context. We conclude that the decision to use biomarkers of organ-specific injury would greatly benefit by first having independent knowledge of whether the person's exposure was heterogeneous and, if so, what was the dose distribution (to determine which organs were exposed to high doses). In Part 2, we describe how these two essential needs for prior information (heterogeneity and dose distribution) could be obtained by using in vivo nail dosimetry. This novel physical biodosimetry method can also meet the needs for initial triage, providing non-invasive, point-of-care measurements made by non-experts with immediate dose estimates for four separate anatomical sites. Additionally, it uniquely provides immediate information as to whether the exposure was homogeneous and, if not, it can estimate the dose distribution. We conclude that combining the capability of methods such as in vivo EPR nail dosimetry with bioassays to predict organ-specific damage would allow effective use of medical resources to save lives.
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.