4.3 Article

LINKING THE HUMAN RESPONSE TO UNPLANNED RADIATION AND TREATMENT TO THE NONHUMAN PRIMATE RESPONSE TO CONTROLLED RADIATION AND TREATMENT

期刊

HEALTH PHYSICS
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 129-134

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182a12de0

关键词

blood; gastrointestinal tract; health effects; radiation effects

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [HHSN272201000046C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A key difficulty in developing countermeasures against radiation-induced health impairments is the clear lack of controlled clinical studies, due to the relatively low number of radiation victims worldwide. Instead, established and accepted animal models, as well as the recommendations of national and international expert panels and committees, are the main sources of information. Therefore, the development of countermeasures requires comparison of data from many sources and accumulation of information consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Animal Rule.'' A new approach is the comparative analysis of human data from the SEARCH (System for Evaluation and Archiving of Radiation Accidents based on Case Histories) database and data from nonhuman primate (NHP) animal model studies. The SEARCH database contains 824 clinical cases from 81 radiation accidents in 19 countries. This exceptional collection of clinical data from accidentally radiation-exposed persons is analyzed regarding clinical signs and symptoms of radiation-induced health impairments. To analyze the time course of radiation syndromes, clinical parameters common to the SEARCH and NHP databases have to be assigned into comparable categories of clinical severity for each species. The goal is to establish a method for comparison of human and NHP data, validate the NHP data as a surrogate for human efficacy/clinical studies, and open away for the extraction of diagnostic and treatment methods for humans after radiation exposure according to relevant regulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据