Cited by 79Radiation Therapy and DosimetryEffects of Radiation ExposureSpaceflight effects on biology

A New Approach to Reduce Uncertainties in Space Radiation Cancer Risk Predictions

Open access
Cucinotta, Francis A.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The prediction of space radiation induced cancer risk carries large uncertainties with two of the largest uncertainties being radiation quality and dose-rate effects. In risk models the ratio of the quality factor (QF) to the dose and dose-rate reduction effectiveness factor (DDREF) parameter is used to scale organ doses for cosmic ray proton and high charge and energy (HZE) particles to a hazard rate for γ-rays derived from human epidemiology data. In previous work, particle track structure concepts were used to formulate a space radiation QF function that is dependent on particle charge number Z, and kinetic energy per atomic mass unit, E. QF uncertainties where represented by subjective probability distribution functions (PDF) for the three QF parameters that described its maximum value and shape parameters for Z and E dependences. Here I report on an analysis of a maximum QF parameter and its uncertainty using mouse tumor induction data. Because experimental data for risks at low doses of γ-rays are highly uncertain which impacts estimates of maximum values of relative biological effectiveness (RBEmax), I developed an alternate QF model, denoted QFγAcute where QFs are defined relative to higher acute γ-ray doses (0.5 to 3 Gy). The alternate model reduces the dependence of risk projections on the DDREF, however a DDREF is still needed for risk estimates for high-energy protons and other primary or secondary sparsely ionizing space radiation components. Risk projections (upper confidence levels (CL)) for space missions show a reduction of about 40% (CL∼50%) using the QFγAcute model compared the QFs based on RBEmax and about 25% (CL∼35%) compared to previous estimates. In addition, I discuss how a possible qualitative difference leading to increased tumor lethality for HZE particles compared to low LET radiation and background tumors remains a large uncertainty in risk estimates.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0120717

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More recent versions of the NSCR model suggest the possibility of a much higher risk than 3% fatality at 600 mSv for 35-year-old females.

    “In-fact, the more recent versions of NSCR model suggest the possibility of a much higher risk than 3% fatality at 600 mSv for 35-y old females”

    From A proposed change to astronaut exposures limits is a giant leap backwards for radiation protection (2021) · cites this paper as Cucinotta, 2015

    Table 4 in the Results shows that the upper confidence limits for predicted radiation-induced death risk in female never-smokers exceed 3%, supporting the possibility of a higher risk. But those predictions concern 45-year-old women on a one-year space mission; the paper does not establish the claimed risk specifically for 35-year-old women at 600 mSv. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Since 2012 several new versions of the NSCR model have been developed and published by Cucinotta et al.

    “Since 2012 several new versions of the NSCR model have been developed and published by Cucinotta et al. (Cucinotta, 2015;Cucinotta et al., 2015;Cucinotta et al., 2016;Cacao et al., 2016;Cucinotta et al., 2017;Cucinotta and Cacao, 2017;Cucinotta et al., 2018;Cucinotta et al., 2020;Cucinotta et al., 2020).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]NAS. Radiation hazards to crews on interplanetary missions. Report of the task group on the biological effects of space radiation National Academy of Sciences Space Science Board. The National Academies Press: Washington DC; 1996.
  2. [6]NRC. Managing space radiation risk in the new era of space exploration National Research Council, Aeronautics and Engineering Board. The National Academies Press: Washington DC; 2008.
  3. [7]NRC. Technical evaluation of the NASA model for cancer risk to astronauts due to space radiation National Research Council. The National Academies Press: Washington DC; 2012. 24600746

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cucinotta, F. A.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
Corresponding author
Cucinotta, Francis A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-03-19
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
e0120717
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094130837
Cited by
79
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
Keywords
space radiation, radiation-induced cancer risk, quality factor, relative biological effectiveness, cosmic ray protons, HZE particles, risk and uncertainty, space missions
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Cosmic Radiation, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Female, Gamma Rays, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred BALB C, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Risk Assessment, Uncertainty, Mice

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