Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42437240›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Scientific and Clinical Studies on Variation in Individual Response to Ionising Radiation: A Scoping Review.

Abdul Nadim Asil, Lily Crouzier, Marc Benderitter, Christophe Badie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Abdul Nadim AsilPsychiatry, NHS England, London, GBR.
Lily CrouzierMedicine, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Marc BenderitterDivision of Health, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Paris, FRA.
Christophe BadieCancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ionising radiation, defined as radiation with sufficient energy to remove electrons from atoms and molecules, can produce significant biological effects in living tissue. Individual response to ionising radiation varies considerably and underpins both deterministic tissue reactions and stochastic effects such as cancer. The concepts of radiosensitivity and radiosusceptibility are central to this variability; however, their definitions and applications remain inconsistent across the literature. This scoping review aims to systematically map and analyse how radiosensitivity and radiosusceptibility are defined, applied, and distinguished in scientific and clinical studies of ionising radiation. The review was conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus (December 2025) was performed using a broad Boolean strategy to capture variation in terminology. Following staged filtering and duplicate removal, studies were screened at title/abstract and full-text levels by two independent reviewers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardised framework and synthesised descriptively. The search yielded over 14,000 records, which were systematically reduced through structured filtering to a manageable dataset for screening. The final included studies demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in study design, endpoints, and terminology. Radiosensitivity was predominantly characterised using cellular and molecular measures, including DNA damage, repair capacity, and cytogenetic assays, whereas radiosusceptibility was particularly associated with normal tissue toxicity and radiation-induced cancer risk. The term "radiosusceptibility" was comparatively underrepresented. Across studies, considerable inter-individual variability in radiation response was consistently observed. This review highlights a lack of conceptual clarity and consistency in the use of radiosensitivity and radiosusceptibility. Greater definitional precision and methodological alignment are needed to improve comparability across studies and support the integration of biological and clinical evidence, with implications for personalised radiotherapy and radiation risk assessment.

Indexed as

ionising radiationradiosensitivityradiosusceptibilityradiotherapy (rt)response to radiation

Identifiers

PMID42437240
PMCPMC13355879

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.