Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

RESPONSE Re: Markers of DNA Repair and Susceptibility to Cancer in Humans: an Epidemiologic Review

Berwick, M.·2000·Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

We are pleased that Hemminki et al. have taken seriously the challenge in our recent review (1) to develop definitive molecular assays for DNA repair. Their conclusions echo ours: neither they nor we really know what the studies in lymphocytes measure. Clearly, their research publications in 1999 and 2000 will be valuable in developing the techniques for studying DNA repair. We find it interesting that the two studies using kinetic tests on skin biopsies, which Hemminki et al. believe fulfill the criterion of biologic relevance, had positive and statistically significant results (although carried out in only a few subjects). Roth et al. (2) showed that melanoma subjects had lower DNA repair rates than control subjects (P < .001), and Alcalay et al. (3) showed that dimers in basal cell carcinoma subjects were eliminated less rapidly than in control subjects (P < .05). The overall message that we derive from our analysis of the literature is that a considerable number of studies consistently found an association between biologic tests, whose significance is still obscure, and cancer at several sites. Looking at it this way, we agree with Hemminki and colleagues that further clarification of the biologic background is crucial. However, at this time, we think that focusing our attention on the design of the studies, reproducibility, sample size, and selection of control subjects was necessary to draw valid conclusions at the population level. The issue of biologic relevance of studies of DNA repair in lymphocytes is critical for epidemiologic studies where associations are derived from numerous subjects to define small reproducible alterations that may be important. Most of the work Hemminki et al. cite has been conducted in very small groups and has not yet been reproduced. In sum, the issues raised by Hemminki et al. are critical for the appropriate assessment of DNA repair. We hope that other eminent scientists will join their efforts to develop appropriate assays for DNA repair.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/92.18.1537

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 545

Metadata

Authors
Berwick, M.
Venue
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2000-09-20
Volume
92
Issue
18
Pages
1537-1537
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2152771893
Cited by
545
References
2
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: RESPONSE Re: Markers of DNA Repair and Susceptibility to Cancer in Humans: an Epidemiologic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/92.18.1537
The paper
Berwick, M. (2000). RESPONSE Re: Markers of DNA Repair and Susceptibility to Cancer in Humans: an Epidemiologic Review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.18.1537

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.