ReviewInternational journal of radiation biology2022
All for one, though not one for all: team players in normal tissue radiobiology.
Review in International journal of radiation biology, 2022. 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.
- Curcumin's Radioprotective Effects on Zebrafish Embryos.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- CD73/adenosine dynamics in treatment-induced pneumonitis: balancing efficacy with risks of adverse events in combined radio-immunotherapies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Differential Expression of ATM, NF-KB, PINK1 and Foxo3a in Radiation-Induced Basal Cell Carcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- A C57L/J Mouse Model of the Delayed Effects of Acute Radiation Exposure in the Context of Evolving Multi-Organ Dysfunction and Failure after Total-Body Irradiation with 2.5% Bone Marrow Sparing.Radiation research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs part of the special issue on 'Women in Science', this review offers a perspective on past and ongoing work in the field of normal (non-cancer) tissue radiation biology, highlighting the work of many of the leading contributors to this field of research. We discuss some of the hypotheses that have guided investigations, with a focus on some of the critical organs considered dose-limiting with respect to radiation therapy, and speculate on where the field needs to go in the future.
conclusionsThe scope of work that makes up normal tissue radiation biology has and continues to play a pivotal role in the radiation sciences, ensuring the most effective application of radiation in imaging and therapy, as well as contributing to radiation protection efforts. However, despite the proven historical value of preclinical findings, recent decades have seen clinical practice move ahead with altered fractionation scheduling based on empirical observations, with little to no (or even negative) supporting scientific data. Given our current appreciation of the complexity of normal tissue radiation responses and their temporal variability, with tissue- and/or organ-specific mechanisms that include intra-, inter- and extracellular messaging, as well as contributions from systemic compartments, such as the immune system, the need to maintain a positive therapeutic ratio has never been more urgent. Importantly, mitigation and treatment strategies, whether for the clinic, emergency use following accidental or deliberate releases, or reducing occupational risk, will likely require multi-targeted approaches that involve both local and systemic intervention. From our personal perspective as five 'Women in Science', we would like to acknowledge and applaud the role that many female scientists have played in this field. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, some of whom are fellow contributors to this special issue.
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.