Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40152977›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2025

Maintaining competence in radiation protection research: a position statement by the MELODI scientific advisory committee.

Sally A Amundson, Mauro Belli, Maria Blettner, Kerstin Borgmann, Eva Forssell-Aronsson, Mats Harms-Ringdahl, Penelope A Jeggo, Ohtsura Niwa, Peter O'Neill

Abstract readLetterConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Sally A AmundsonCenter for Radiological Research, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Mauro BelliIndependent Researcher, Rome, Italy.
Maria BlettnerUniversity of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Kerstin BorgmannDepartment of Radiotherapy & Radiation Oncology, Hubertus Wald Tumor Center-University, Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Eva Forssell-AronssonDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SE-413 45, Sweden.
Mats Harms-RingdahlDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner-Gren Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 10691, Sweden.
Penelope A JeggoGenome Damage and Stability Centre, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RQ, UK. p.a.jeggo@sussex.ac.uk.
Ohtsura NiwaKyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Peter O'NeillDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, ORCRB, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this position statement is to bring to the forefront the necessity for maintaining and enhancing high competence in assessing the impact of low dose and low dose rate exposure on human health and the urge for funding to achieve this within Europe. Exposure to low dose/dose rates of radiation can arise from multiple scenarios or events, including natural radiation exposure, the use of radiation in medicine, industry and energy production, terrorist actions and following a nuclear incident or war. Technological developments involving radiation are progressing rapidly and have the potential to benefit mankind and societal issues. The benefit of high dose exposure during radiotherapy is a well-funded area. However, the health consequences of exposure to low doses is not well understood and the area of radiation protection research (RPR) is poorly funded. High quality RPR is essential to allow updating of radiation safety regulations for optimal protection from natural, medical and occupational exposure and for assessment of radiation incidents. Continuous evaluation of risks is essential as technological developments result in new types of radiation exposure. We will overview the technologies and situations which can potentially lead to low dose exposure, evaluate what has been gained from RPR and the questions that still need addressing, discuss the current state of RPR in Europe and highlight the consequences of a failure to adequately fund this area. We conclude that increased funding for RPR is essential to maintain high competence and to allow adequate protection of the public to inevitable low dose radiation exposure.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesRadiation ProtectionResearchHumansEnvironmental radiation exposureLow doseLow dose rateNuclear incidentRadiation protectionRadiation research

Identifiers

PMID40152977
PMCPMC12049276

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.