ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2021
Invited Commentary: Ionizing Radiation and Future Reproductive Health-Old Cohorts Still Deserve Attention.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.Health physics · 2025Article
- Utility of melatonin in mitigating ionizing radiation-induced testis injury through synergistic interdependence of its biological properties.Biological research · 2022Article
- Yamada et al. Respond to "Radiation and Reproductive Health".American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiation from nuclear weapons or power plants has caused great concern among the public-concern that needs to be addressed with the best available data. Among the concerns associated with ionizing radiation are possible serious and far-reaching effects on reproductive health. Relevant data that can be used to address these concerns are scarce. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of World War II and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine are probably among the most dramatic and important sources of information on health effects, but much of the information is historical, and the exposed cohorts are getting old. In their accompanying article, Yamada et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(11):2323-2333) revisit data on reproductive health outcomes in survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings during the years after the blasts. Exposure levels were very high, but after Yamada et al.'s reanalysis, effect estimates were low, and the evidence for overall effects on birth defects and perinatal mortality is still weak. The authors acknowledge that their data have limitations and that the generalizability of the findings is limited by the devastating conditions that prevailed in the 2 Japanese cities after the blasts.
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.