Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,765

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know

Open access
Brenner, David J., Doll, Richard, Goodhead, Dudley T., Hall, Eric J., Land, Charles E., Little, John B., Lubin, Jay H., Preston, Dale L., Preston, R. Julian, Puskin, Jerome S., Ron, Elaine, Sachs, Rainer K., Samet, Jonathan M., Setlow, Richard B., Zaider, Marco·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

High doses of ionizing radiation clearly produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer induction. At very low radiation doses the situation is much less clear, but the risks of low-dose radiation are of societal importance in relation to issues as varied as screening tests for cancer, the future of nuclear power, occupational radiation exposure, frequent-flyer risks, manned space exploration, and radiological terrorism. We review the difficulties involved in quantifying the risks of low-dose radiation and address two specific questions. First, what is the lowest dose of x- or γ-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure. Second, what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses? Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology. This linearity assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation-induced cancer risks and an overestimate of others.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2235592100

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,765

Metadata

Authors
Brenner, D. J., Doll, R., Goodhead, D. T., Hall, E. J., Land, C. E., Little, J. B., Lubin, J. H., Preston, D. L., Preston, R. J., Puskin, J. S., Ron, E., Sachs, R. K., Samet, J. M., Setlow, R. B., & Zaider, M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-11-10
Volume
100
Issue
24
Pages
13761-13766
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2171465583
Cited by
1,765
References
4
FWCI
31.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.2235592100
The paper
Brenner, D. J., Doll, R., Goodhead, D. T., Hall, E. J., Land, C. E., Little, J. B., Lubin, J. H., Preston, D. L., Preston, R. J., Puskin, J. S., Ron, E., Sachs, R. K., Samet, J. M., Setlow, R. B., & Zaider, M. (2003). Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235592100

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.