The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures
Open accessAbstract
The 600% increase in medical radiation exposure to the US population since 1980 has provided immense benefit, but increased potential future cancer risks to patients. Most of the increase is from diagnostic radiologic procedures. The objectives of this review are to summarize epidemiologic data on cancer risks associated with diagnostic procedures, describe how exposures from recent diagnostic procedures relate to radiation levels linked with cancer occurrence, and propose a framework of strategies to reduce radiation from diagnostic imaging in patients. We briefly review radiation dose definitions, mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis, key epidemiologic studies of medical and other radiation sources and cancer risks, and dose trends from diagnostic procedures. We describe cancer risks from experimental studies, future projected risks from current imaging procedures, and the potential for higher risks in genetically susceptible populations. To reduce future projected cancers from diagnostic procedures, we advocate the widespread use of evidence‐based appropriateness criteria for decisions about imaging procedures; oversight of equipment to deliver reliably the minimum radiation required to attain clinical objectives; development of electronic lifetime records of imaging procedures for patients and their physicians; and commitment by medical training programs, professional societies, and radiation protection organizations to educate all stakeholders in reducing radiation from diagnostic procedures. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 · Cited by 2,089
Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries
de González, A. B., & Darby, S. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15433-0 · Cited by 1,718
Strategies for Reducing Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., Primak, A. N., Braun, N., Kofler, J., Yu, L., & Christner, J. (2009) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 · Cited by 842
CANCER RISKS FROM MEDICAL RADIATION
Ron, E. (2003) · Health Physics · doi:10.1097/00004032-200307000-00011 · Cited by 382
Metadata
- Authors
- Linet, M. S., Slovis, T. L., Miller, D. L., Kleinerman, R., Lee, C., Rajaraman, P., & Berrington de Gonzalez, A.
- Venue
- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-02-03
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 75-100
- ISSN
- 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
- 1542-4863
- OpenAlex
- W2172017118
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/caac.21132
- The paper
- Linet, M. S., Slovis, T. L., Miller, D. L., Kleinerman, R., Lee, C., Rajaraman, P., & Berrington de Gonzalez, A. (2012). Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21132
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.