ReviewRadiation and environmental biophysics2026
Radiation exposure facilities for radiobiology in Europe: availability, capabilities, and limitations.
Review in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimental radiobiology studies rely on exposure platforms that replicate real-world scenarios, yet information on their availability and biological suitability is often fragmented. We thus aimed to map capabilities, access routes, and limitations of European irradiation facilities, with a focus on Germany and briefly contextualized it with selected platforms in the United States of America (U.S.). Single-source systems (X-ray, gamma, alpha/beta) are widely available for cell/animal work, but mixed-beam platforms with controlled conditions and traceable dosimetry are scarce and oversubscribed while alpha/radon analogue setups vary in geometry and atmosphere control, hindering comparability. Large user facilities (reactors, cyclotrons, space-simulation) offer powerful modalities but often lack clearly documented biological access procedures. Here, the selected U.S. facilities provide more explicit user pathways (proposal, fee-for-service, programmatic access). Priorities for Europe should thus include standardized, incubator-compatible mixed-beam systems; a more harmonized reporting of dosimetry/environmental parameters; and a better visibility of biological access in infrastructure catalogues. Ongoing coordination initiatives can underpin these improvements, strengthening reproducibility and access.
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.