| Title |
Dose and dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00411-015-0613-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Werner Rühm, Gayle E. Woloschak, Roy E. Shore, Tamara V. Azizova, Bernd Grosche, Ohtsura Niwa, Suminori Akiba, Tetsuya Ono, Keiji Suzuki, Toshiyasu Iwasaki, Nobuhiko Ban, Michiaki Kai, Christopher H. Clement, Simon Bouffler, Hideki Toma, Nobuyuki Hamada |
| Abstract |
The biological effects on humans of low-dose and low-dose-rate exposures to ionizing radiation have always been of major interest. The most recent concept as suggested by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is to extrapolate existing epidemiological data at high doses and dose rates down to low doses and low dose rates relevant to radiological protection, using the so-called dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF). The present paper summarizes what was presented and discussed by experts from ICRP and Japan at a dedicated workshop on this topic held in May 2015 in Kyoto, Japan. This paper describes the historical development of the DDREF concept in light of emerging scientific evidence on dose and dose-rate effects, summarizes the conclusions recently drawn by a number of international organizations (e.g., BEIR VII, ICRP, SSK, UNSCEAR, and WHO), mentions current scientific efforts to obtain more data on low-dose and low-dose-rate effects at molecular, cellular, animal and human levels, and discusses future options that could be useful to improve and optimize the DDREF concept for the purpose of radiological protection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 5 | 42% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 27% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 15% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,389,715
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#60
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,745
of 278,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 485 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them