线性无阈（LNT）剂量反应模型：对其历史和科学基础的全面评估。
The linear No-Threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations.
机构信息
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I, N344, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.
出版信息
Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Mar 1;301:6-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
PMID:30763547
Abstract
The linear no-threshold (LNT) single-hit (SH) dose response model for cancer risk assessment is comprehensively assessed with respect to its historical foundations. This paper also examines how mistakes, ideological biases, and scientific misconduct by key scientists affected the acceptance, validity, and applications of the LNT model for cancer risk assessment. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that the LNT single-hit model was inappropriately adopted for governmental risk assessment, regulatory policy, practices, and for risk communication.
摘要
线性无阈（LNT）单击（SH）剂量反应模型是癌症风险评估的综合评估，考虑到其历史基础。本文还研究了关键科学家的错误、思想偏见和科学不当行为如何影响 LNT 模型在癌症风险评估中的接受、有效性和应用。此外，分析表明，LNT 单击模型不适当地被用于政府风险评估、监管政策、实践以及风险沟通。
相似文献
1
The linear No-Threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations.线性无阈（LNT）剂量反应模型：对其历史和科学基础的全面评估。
Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Mar 1;301:6-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
2
LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: Where LNT began.线性无阈模型（LNT）与癌症风险评估：其有缺陷的基础 1：辐射与白血病：LNT 的起源。
Environ Res. 2021 Jun;197:111025. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
3
From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment.从 Muller 到机制：LNT 如何成为癌症风险评估的默认模型。
Environ Pollut. 2018 Oct;241:289-302. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.051. Epub 2018 May 22.
4
Ethical challenges of the linear non-threshold (LNT) cancer risk assessment revolution: History, insights, and lessons to be learned.线性无阈（LNT）癌症风险评估革命的伦理挑战：历史、洞察与教训。
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Aug 1;832:155054. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155054. Epub 2022 Apr 4.
5
On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.线性无阈值（LNT）教条的起源是通过谎言、巧妙回避和盲目信仰。
Environ Res. 2015 Oct;142:432-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 4.
6
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.阈值与线性无阈模型的对决：剂量率研究结果揭示了线性无阈模型的缺陷 第2部分。一个错误是如何导致辐射效应研究委员会第一委员会采用线性无阈模型的。
Environ Res. 2017 Apr;154:452-458. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.024. Epub 2016 Dec 11.
7
Muller mistakes: The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response and US EPA's cancer risk assessment policies and practices.穆勒错误：线性无阈（LNT）剂量反应与美国环保署的癌症风险评估政策和实践。
Chem Biol Interact. 2023 Sep 25;383:110653. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2023.110653. Epub 2023 Aug 11.
8
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate.阈值与线性无阈模型的对决：剂量率研究结果揭示了线性无阈模型的缺陷 第1部分。拉塞尔 - 穆勒辩论。
Environ Res. 2017 Apr;154:435-451. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.006. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
9
Ionizing radiations epidemiology does not support the LNT model.电离辐射流行病学并不支持线性无阈（LNT）模型。
Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Mar 1;301:128-140. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.014. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
10
EPA adopts LNT: New historical perspectives.EPA 采用 LNT：新的历史视角。
Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Aug 1;308:110-112. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2019.05.027. Epub 2019 May 17.
引用本文的文献
1
Patient radiation safety in the intensive care unit.重症监护病房中的患者辐射安全。
Br J Radiol. 2025 Sep 1;98(1173):1335-1343. doi: 10.1093/bjr/tqaf147.
2
The case of the Hermann J. Muller's unpublished manuscript entitled: does smoking lengthen life?赫尔曼·J·穆勒未发表的手稿案例，标题为：吸烟会延长寿命吗？
Arch Toxicol. 2025 Jun 17. doi: 10.1007/s00204-025-04114-z.
3
Comparison of various methodological approaches to model asbestos thresholds for mesothelioma.用于模拟间皮瘤石棉阈值的各种方法学途径的比较。
Front Public Health. 2025 May 13;13:1569343. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1569343. eCollection 2025.
4
Variability Between Radiation-Induced Cancer Risk Models in Estimating Oncogenic Risk in Intensive Care Unit Patients.放射诱导癌症风险模型在估计重症监护病房患者致癌风险方面的差异
Tomography. 2025 Apr 3;11(4):42. doi: 10.3390/tomography11040042.
5
Principles of radiological protection and application of ALARA, ALADA, and ALADAIP: a critical review.放射防护原则以及最优化、剂量尽可能低和剂量尽可能低并保持防护最优化原则的应用：一项批判性综述
Braz Oral Res. 2025 Feb 7;39:e14. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2025.vol39.014. eCollection 2025.
6
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Low Dose Radiation Therapy for COVID-19 Pneumonia: Learnings of 4 Years Since Pandemic.COVID-19肺炎低剂量放射治疗的系统评价与荟萃分析：大流行四年以来的经验教训
Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Feb;18(2):e70137. doi: 10.1111/cts.70137.
7
False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.辐射剂量反应早期研究中关于科学不端行为的虚假和误导性指控：第1部分。忽视关键历史文本。
Health Phys. 2025 Jun 1;128(6):507-523. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001932. Epub 2024 Dec 10.
8
Random Threshold Model: A Low-Dose Radiation-Induced Risk Assessment Approach Considering Individual Susceptibility to Cancer.随机阈值模型：一种考虑个体癌症易感性的低剂量辐射诱发风险评估方法。
Dose Response. 2024 Nov 3;22(4):15593258241298553. doi: 10.1177/15593258241298553. eCollection 2024 Oct-Dec.
9
Newly discovered letter: why Muller failed to cite the negative mouse mutation findings of Snell, preserving his chances to receive the Nobel Prize.新发现的信件：为何 Muller 未能引用 Snell 的阴性小鼠突变发现，从而保留了自己获得诺贝尔奖的机会。
Arch Toxicol. 2024 Aug;98(8):2739-2741. doi: 10.1007/s00204-024-03807-1. Epub 2024 Jun 22.
10
Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture.确认赫尔曼·穆勒在诺贝尔奖演讲中不诚实。
Arch Toxicol. 2023 Nov;97(11):2999-3003. doi: 10.1007/s00204-023-03566-5. Epub 2023 Sep 4.
Zotero 插件