ReviewRadiation research2023
Considerations of Medical Preparedness to Assess and Treat Various Populations During a Radiation Public Health Emergency.
Review in Radiation research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomitigators: Breakthroughs in Post-Radiation Recovery.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Radiation emergency medical countermeasures: Current formulary, identified gaps, and future approaches.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Whole-Thorax Irradiation Induces Persistent T Cell Clonal Dysregulation in Pediatric Rhesus Macaques.Radiation research · 2025Article
- Cyclone-induced hematological emergencies: preparedness and response from a hematologist's viewpoint.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Maintaining competence in radiation protection research: a position statement by the MELODI scientific advisory committee.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2025Article
- Article
- A narrative literature review to inform the development of a health threats preparedness framework in Ireland.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Intracellular lymphocyte protein biomarkers for early radiological triage in the human population.PloS one · 2025Article
- An Overview of Radiation Countermeasure Development in Radiation Research from 1954 to 2024.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Comparison of Novel Proteomic Expression Profiles for Radiation Exposure in Male and Female C57BL6 Mice.Radiation research · 2024Article
- Gastrointestinal Acute Radiation Syndrome: Mechanisms, Models, Markers, and Medical Countermeasures.Radiation research · 2024Article
- A comprehensive review of dose limits, triage systems and measurement tools for consequence management of nuclear and radiological emergencies.Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2024Article
- Effects of radiation mitigating amino acid mixture on mice of different sexes.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Biological sex differences in renin angiotensin system enzymes ACE and ACE2 regulate normal tissue response to radiation injury.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- The delayed effects of acute radiation exposure (DEARE): characteristics, mechanisms, animal models, and promising medical countermeasures.International journal of radiation biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
During a radiological or nuclear public health emergency, given the heterogeneity of civilian populations, it is incumbent on medical response planners to understand and prepare for a potentially high degree of interindividual variability in the biological effects of radiation exposure. A part of advanced planning should include a comprehensive approach, in which the range of possible human responses in relation to the type of radiation expected from an incident has been thoughtfully considered. Although there are several reports addressing the radiation response for special populations (as compared to the standard 18-45-year-old male), the current review surveys published literature to assess the level of consideration given to differences in acute radiation responses in certain sub-groups. The authors attempt to bring clarity to the complex nature of human biology in the context of radiation to facilitate a path forward for radiation medical countermeasure (MCM) development that may be appropriate and effective in special populations. Consequently, the focus is on the medical (as opposed to logistical) aspects of preparedness and response. Populations identified for consideration include obstetric, pediatric, geriatric, males, females, individuals of different race/ethnicity, and people with comorbidities. Relevant animal models, biomarkers of radiation injury, and MCMs are highlighted, in addition to underscoring gaps in knowledge and the need for consistent and early inclusion of these populations in research. The inclusion of special populations in preclinical and clinical studies is essential to address shortcomings and is an important consideration for radiation public health emergency response planning. Pursuing this goal will benefit the population at large by considering those at greatest risk of health consequences after a radiological or nuclear mass casualty incident.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.