Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know
By David J. Brenner, R. Doll, D. Goodhead, E. Hall, C. Land, J. Little, J. Lubin, D. Preston, R. Preston, J. Puskin and 5 more. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2003
1,790 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Radiological and Ultrasound Technology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/74041246dd4e68f36caf1c4320d9b43d2934a8f3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Citations in the corpus
- Radiation Dose Associated with Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer (2009, neutral): “7-9 55 9 Suspected stroke 87 14 (9-20) 4-56 199 33 Chest Routine chest, no contrast 120 8 (5-11) 2-24 117 20 Routine chest, with contrast 120 8 (5-12) 2-19 119 20 Suspected pulmonary embolism 120 10 (7-14) 2-30 137 23 Coronary angiogram 34 22 (14-24) 7-39 309 51 Abdomen-pelvis Routine abdomen-pelvis”
- Charged particles in radiation oncology (2010, background): “More research is needed because the carcinogenic potential of low doses of X-rays is not completely understood”
- Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. (2008, background): “A-bomb survivors Several analyses have addressed the question of the lowest dose for which a statistically significant increase in cancer risk is apparent [6, 7], with the caveat, as discussed above, that age-averaged data must be used for the analysis.”
- Infection, immune responses and the aetiology of childhood leukaemia (2006, background): “This estimation extrapolates to very low and protracted levels of exposure with the double premise that dose–response for cancer risk is linear at very low doses, and that there is no threshold dose of radiation for mutation and leukaemi”
- Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. (2004, background): “than the mean doses in groups of atomic bomb survivors in which statistically significant increases in cancer risks are seen (9,10,12).”
- Radiation-induced bystander signalling in cancer therapy (2009, neutral): “There has been considerable debate as to their relevance to radiation risk at low doses with some authors suggesting that they affect the current use of the linear no-threshold hypothesis for risk estimatio”