Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36287908›Full record

ReviewToxics2022

Comparison of the Medical Uses and Cellular Effects of High and Low Linear Energy Transfer Radiation.

Eric Russ, Catherine M Davis, John E Slaven, Dmitry T Bradfield, Reed G Selwyn, Regina M Day

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. NeoadjuvantCancers · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric RussGraduate Program of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Catherine M DavisDepartment of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2591-6352
John E SlavenDepartment of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Dmitry T BradfieldDepartment of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Reed G SelwynDepartment of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
Regina M DayDepartment of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

Defense Medical Research and Development VP000264-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur during medical treatments, from naturally occurring sources in the environment, or as the result of a nuclear accident or thermonuclear war. The severity of cellular damage from ionizing radiation exposure is dependent upon a number of factors including the absorbed radiation dose of the exposure (energy absorbed per unit mass of the exposure), dose rate, area and volume of tissue exposed, type of radiation (e.g., X-rays, high-energy gamma rays, protons, or neutrons) and linear energy transfer. While the dose, the dose rate, and dose distribution in tissue are aspects of a radiation exposure that can be varied experimentally or in medical treatments, the LET and eV are inherent characteristics of the type of radiation. High-LET radiation deposits a higher concentration of energy in a shorter distance when traversing tissue compared with low-LET radiation. The different biological effects of high and low LET with similar energies have been documented in vivo in animal models and in cultured cells. High-LET results in intense macromolecular damage and more cell death. Findings indicate that while both low- and high-LET radiation activate non-homologous end-joining DNA repair activity, efficient repair of high-LET radiation requires the homologous recombination repair pathway. Low- and high-LET radiation activate p53 transcription factor activity in most cells, but high LET activates NF-kB transcription factor at lower radiation doses than low-LET radiation. Here we review the development, uses, and current understanding of the cellular effects of low- and high-LET radiation exposure.

Indexed as

biological effectscellular effectsionizing radiationlinear energy transfersignal transductiontranscriptomic analysis

Identifiers

PMID36287908
PMCPMC9609561
OpenAlexW4307264927

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.