Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33987930›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2021

The effects of ionizing radiation on domestic dogs: a review of the atomic bomb testing era.

Gabriella J Spatola, Elaine A Ostrander, Timothy A Mousseau

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The veterinary quarterly · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Canine and murine models of osteosarcoma.Veterinary pathology · 2022
    Review
  5. Interagency approaches to animal models for acute radiation exposure.International journal of radiation biology · 2021
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriella J SpatolaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0001-7889-3425
Elaine A OstranderCancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0001-6075-9738
Timothy A MousseauDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-2235-4868
University of South Carolina · USNational Human Genome Research Institute · US

Funding

Comparative Mammalian GenomicsZIAHG200377 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI OSTRANDER, ELAINE · 2012 to 2025
$24.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HG200377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs were frequently employed as laboratory subjects during the era of atomic bomb testing (1950-1980), particularly in studies used to generate predictive data regarding the expected effects of accidental human occupational exposure to radiation. The bulk of these studies were only partly reported in the primary literature, despite providing vital information regarding the effects of radiation exposure on a model mammalian species. Herein we review this literature and summarize the biological effects in relation to the isotopes used and the method of radionuclide exposure. Overall, these studies demonstrate the wide range of developmental and physiological effects of exposure to radiation and radionuclides in a mid-sized mammal.

Indexed as

Nuclear WeaponsAnimalsDogsHumansRadiation, IonizingResearch DesignSurvivorscancercaninediseasedogradiationradioactivity

Identifiers

PMID33987930
PMCPMC8429057
OpenAlexW3163192800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.