ReviewEcancermedicalscience2023
Ionizing radiation-induced cancer: perplexities of the bystander effect.
Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triglyceride-glucose index and structural chromosome aberrations in medical radiation workers: a cross-sectional study with a stratified dosimetry substudy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Review
- Radiation Quality-Dependent Progressive Increase in Oxidative DNA Damage and Intestinal Tumorigenesis inCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Balancing Regeneration and Resistance: Targeting DCLK1 to Mitigate Gastrointestinal Radiation Injury and Oncogenesis.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ionizing radiation (IR) is a carcinogen. This has been established beyond doubt from many years of studies such as those conducted among the survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later from the Chernobyl accident. Despite immense progress in the field of carcinogenesis, complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind IR-induced cancer remains elusive. In particular, the long gestation period between exposure to IR and the onset of cancer, frequently unpredictable, and sometimes lasting for many years, remains poorly understood. The centrality of DNA damage and misrepair in carcinogenesis research has not entirely benefited IR-induced cancer research and the past decade has seen a shift in understanding radiation-driven cellular mechanisms beyond simplistic models of targeted DNA damage. This paper presents a viewpoint on the gaps in our knowledge of IR-induced cancer with a focus on the non-targeted bystander effect, the mechanisms underlying which may be key to radiotherapeutic advances.
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.