Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32970457›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020

Can a comparison of clinical and deep space irradiation scenarios shed light on the radiation response of the brain?

Charles Limoli

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles LimoliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Not surprisingly, our knowledge of the impact of radiation on the brain has evolved considerably. Decades of work have struggled with identifying the critical cellular targets in the brain, the latency of functional change and understanding how irradiation alters the balance between excitatory and inhibitory circuits. Radiation-induced cell kill following clinical fractionation paradigms pointed to both stromal and parenchymal targets but also defined an exquisite sensitivity of neurogenic populations of newly born cells in the brain. It became more and more apparent too, that acute (days) events transpiring after exposure were poorly prognostic of the late (months-years) waves of radiation injury believed to underlie neurocognitive deficits. Much of these gaps in knowledge persisted as NASA became interested in how exposure to much different radiation types, doses and dose rates that characterize the space radiation environment might impair central nervous system functionality, with possibly negative implications for deep space travel. Now emerging evidence from researchers engaged in clinical, translational and environmental radiation sciences have begun to fill these gaps and have uncovered some surprising similarities in the response of the brain to seemingly disparate exposure scenarios. This article highlights many of the commonalities between the vastly different irradiation paradigms that distinguish clinical treatments from occupational exposures in deep space.

Indexed as

Space FlightBrainBrain NeoplasmsCognition DisordersHumansIonsLinear Energy TransferRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureRadiation InjuriesIons

Identifiers

PMID32970457
PMCPMC8519643
OpenAlexW3088734915

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.