ReviewInternational journal of radiation biology2021
A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation.
Review in International journal of radiation biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radon-related increases in depressive symptoms are explained by amygdala morphology and external locus of control.Neurotoxicology · 2026Article
- Chronic radon exposure is associated with developmental alterations to neural and behavioral indices of cognitive control.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Neurotoxic effects of home radon exposure on oscillatory dynamics serving attentional orienting in children and adolescents.NeuroImage · 2024Article
- 3D assessment of the nasolabial region in cleft models comparing an intraoral and a facial scanner to a validated baseline.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Indoor Radon Concentration Levels in Healthcare Settings: The Results of an Environmental Monitoring in a Large Italian University Hospital.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Editorial: Pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia: what's next?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- The Evidence for Excess Risk of Cancer and Non-Cancer Disease at Low Doses and Dose Rates.Radiation research · 2022Article
- Understanding the harm of low-dose computed tomography radiation to the body (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Review
- Cancer risks among studies of medical diagnostic radiation exposure in early life without quantitative estimates of dose.The Science of the total environment · 2022Review
- Measurements and determinants of children's exposure to background gamma radiation in Switzerland.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses.Environment international · 2022Review
- Summary of Radiation Research Society Online 66th Annual Meeting, Symposium on "Epidemiology: Updates on epidemiological low dose studies," including discussion.International journal of radiation biology · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Childhood Leukemia: Radiation and Beyond.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Recommendations for reducing exposure to medical X-ray irradiation (Review).Medicine internationalReview
- Evidence of decreased neural efficiency supporting fluid reasoning abilities in children and adolescents chronically exposed to home radon.Neurotoxicology and teratologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe projected existence and magnitude of carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation at low doses and low-dose rates is perhaps the most important issue in radiation protection today. Studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation have the potential to throw direct light on this question, into a dose range below a few tens of mSv. This paper describes the studies that have been undertaken and their context, discusses some problems that arise and summarizes the present position.
conclusionsMany such studies have been undertaken, but most were too small to have a realistic chance of detecting the small effects expected from such low doses, based on risk projections from higher exposures. Case-control or cohort studies are to be preferred methodologically to ecological studies but can be prone to problems of registration/participation bias. Interview-based studies of the requisite size would be prohibitively expensive and would undoubtedly also run into problems of participation bias. Register-based studies can be very large and are free of participation bias. However, they need to estimate the radiation exposure of study subjects using models rather than individual measurements in the homes of those concerned. At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the studies that have been published to date. Further data and perhaps pooled studies offer a way forward.
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.