Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091174›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023

Radiation-induced bystander effect and its clinical implications.

Haoyi Tang, Luwei Cai, Xiangyang He, Zihe Niu, Haitong Huang, Wentao Hu, Huahui Bian, Hao Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Radiomitigators: Breakthroughs in Post-Radiation Recovery.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haoyi TangState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Luwei CaiState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Xiangyang HeState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Zihe NiuState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Haitong HuangState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Wentao HuState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Huahui BianNuclear and Radiation Incident Medical Emergency Office, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Hao HuangState Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Soochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many years, targeted DNA damage caused by radiation has been considered the main cause of various biological effects. Based on this paradigm, any small amount of radiation is harmful to the organism. Epidemiological studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors have proposed the linear-non-threshold model as the dominant standard in the field of radiation protection. However, there is increasing evidence that the linear-non-threshold model is not fully applicable to the biological effects caused by low dose radiation, and theories related to low dose radiation require further investigation. In addition to the cell damage caused by direct exposure, non-targeted effects, which are sometimes referred to as bystander effects, abscopal effects, genetic instability, etc., are another kind of significant effect related to low dose radiation. An understanding of this phenomenon is crucial for both basic biomedical research and clinical application. This article reviews recent studies on the bystander effect and summarizes the key findings in the field. Additionally, it offers a cross-sectional comparison of bystander effects caused by various radiation sources in different cell types, as well as an in-depth analysis of studies on the potential biological mechanisms of bystander effects. This review aims to present valuable information and provide new insights on the bystander effect to enlighten both radiobiologists and clinical radiologists searching for new ways to improve clinical treatments.

Indexed as

bystander effectsDNA damageLNTnon-targeted effectsradiation

Identifiers

PMID37091174
PMCPMC10113613
OpenAlexW4362623052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.