A systematic review of human evidence for the intergenerational effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.

Jade Stephens, Alexander J Moorhouse, Kai Craenen, Ewald Schroeder, Fotios Drenos, Rhona Anderson
{"title":"A systematic review of human evidence for the intergenerational effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.","authors":"Jade Stephens, Alexander J Moorhouse, Kai Craenen, Ewald Schroeder, Fotios Drenos, Rhona Anderson","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2306328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To provide a synthesis of the published evidence pertaining to the intergenerational health effects of parental preconceptional exposure to ionizing radiation in humans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study populations are the descendants of those who were exposed to ionizing radiation prior to conception. A Boolean search identified publications for review in accordance with Office of Health Assessment and Translation guidelines. Initially, a risk of bias assessment was conducted for each published study and relevant data extracted. Information was organized into adverse health outcome groups and exposure situations. To make an assessment from the body of evidence within each group, an initial confidence rating was assigned, before factors including inconsistencies between studies, magnitude of effect, dose response and confounders were considered. From this, 'an effect', 'no effect' or whether the evidence remained 'inadequate' to determine either effect or no effect, was ascertained. This assessment was based primarily upon the author's conclusions within that evidence-base and, by binomial probability testing of the direction of effect reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2441 publications were identified for review which after screening was reduced to 127. For the majority of the adverse health groups, we find there to be inadequate evidence from which to determine whether the health effect was, or was not, associated with parental preconceptional radiation exposure. This was largely due to heterogeneity between individual study's findings and conclusions within each group and, the limited number of studies within each group. We did observe one health grouping (congenital abnormalities) in occupationally exposed populations, where an increase in effect relative to their controls or large magnitude of effects, were reported, although it is noted that the authors of these studies interpreted their findings as most likely not to be associated with parental radiation exposure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We find there to be a lack of evidence to enable the formal assessment of radiation-related adverse effects in offspring of exposed humans. This is not the same as there being no clear evidence that effects may occur but does infer that if adverse health effects do arise in children of exposed parents, then these effects are small and difficult to reproducibly measure. Inconsistencies in designing studies are unavoidable, however we highlight the need for an element of standardization and, more sharing of primary datasets as part of open access initiatives, in order for future reviews to make reasonable conclusions. Overall, there is a need for future work to ensure comparable measures between studies where possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"1330-1363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2306328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a synthesis of the published evidence pertaining to the intergenerational health effects of parental preconceptional exposure to ionizing radiation in humans.

Methods: The study populations are the descendants of those who were exposed to ionizing radiation prior to conception. A Boolean search identified publications for review in accordance with Office of Health Assessment and Translation guidelines. Initially, a risk of bias assessment was conducted for each published study and relevant data extracted. Information was organized into adverse health outcome groups and exposure situations. To make an assessment from the body of evidence within each group, an initial confidence rating was assigned, before factors including inconsistencies between studies, magnitude of effect, dose response and confounders were considered. From this, 'an effect', 'no effect' or whether the evidence remained 'inadequate' to determine either effect or no effect, was ascertained. This assessment was based primarily upon the author's conclusions within that evidence-base and, by binomial probability testing of the direction of effect reported.

Results: 2441 publications were identified for review which after screening was reduced to 127. For the majority of the adverse health groups, we find there to be inadequate evidence from which to determine whether the health effect was, or was not, associated with parental preconceptional radiation exposure. This was largely due to heterogeneity between individual study's findings and conclusions within each group and, the limited number of studies within each group. We did observe one health grouping (congenital abnormalities) in occupationally exposed populations, where an increase in effect relative to their controls or large magnitude of effects, were reported, although it is noted that the authors of these studies interpreted their findings as most likely not to be associated with parental radiation exposure.

Conclusions: We find there to be a lack of evidence to enable the formal assessment of radiation-related adverse effects in offspring of exposed humans. This is not the same as there being no clear evidence that effects may occur but does infer that if adverse health effects do arise in children of exposed parents, then these effects are small and difficult to reproducibly measure. Inconsistencies in designing studies are unavoidable, however we highlight the need for an element of standardization and, more sharing of primary datasets as part of open access initiatives, in order for future reviews to make reasonable conclusions. Overall, there is a need for future work to ensure comparable measures between studies where possible.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于电离辐射代际影响的人类证据系统回顾。
目的:综合已发表的有关父母在受孕前暴露于电离辐射对人类代际健康影响的证据:研究人群是受孕前曾暴露于电离辐射者的后代。根据健康评估与转化办公室的指导方针,通过布尔搜索确定了需要审查的出版物。首先,对每项已发表的研究进行偏倚风险评估,并提取相关数据。信息按不良健康结果组别和暴露情况进行整理。为了对每组中的证据进行评估,在考虑包括研究之间的不一致性、影响程度、剂量反应和混杂因素在内的各种因素之前,先进行初步的置信度评级。在此基础上,确定 "有效果"、"无效果 "或证据是否 "不足",以确定有效果或无效果。这一评估主要基于作者在证据基础上得出的结论,并通过对所报告的效应方向进行二项式概率测试。对于大多数不良健康群体,我们发现证据不足,无法确定其健康影响是否与父母受孕前辐照有关。这主要是由于每个组别中的单个研究结果和结论之间存在异质性,以及每个组别中的研究数量有限。我们确实观察到职业辐照人群中的一个健康组别(先天性异常),与对照组相比,其影响增加或影响幅度较大,尽管我们注意到这些研究的作者将其研究结果解释为很可能与父母的辐照无关:我们发现,目前缺乏证据,无法正式评估辐照对人类后代造成的不良影响。这并不等同于没有明确的证据表明可能会产生影响,但确实可以推断出,如果受辐照父母的子女确实对健康产生了不利影响,那么这些影响是微小的,而且难以重复测量。研究设计中的不一致性是不可避免的,但我们强调,为了使未来的综述能得出合理的结论,需要标准化的元素,以及作为开放存取倡议的一部分,更多地共享原始数据集。总之,未来的工作需要尽可能确保研究之间的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
γ-Radiations induced phytoconstituents variability in the grains of cultivated buckwheat species of Himalayan region. IEPA, a novel radiation countermeasure, alleviates acute radiation syndrome in rodents. Isolation and characterization of gamma rays induced mutants for improved agro-morphological performance and harder grain texture in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Advantages of single high-dose radiation therapy compared with conventional fractionated radiation therapy in overcoming radioresistance. Technetium-99m radiolabeling of graphene quantum dots (GQDs) as a new probe for glioblastoma tumor imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1