Skip to main content
Dose-Response logoLink to Dose-Response
. 2026 Aug 6;24(3):15593258261477574. doi: 10.1177/15593258261477574

Prediction of the Dose and Dose-Rate of Ionizing Radiation that Provides the Greatest Biological Benefit

Katsuhito Kino 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC13451670  PMID: 42571154

Abstract

Because the existence of linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis in the low-dose region has not been confirmed, we previously proposed the “hormesis-coupled LNT theory.” Because this theory does not consider the effect of dose-rate, we applied our theory to different dose-rates using data from the previous reference (Yoshida et al. 2008). As a result, we calculated that the biological benefit via radiation can be observed at a dose-rate of <1 mGy/h. In the future, biologically beneficial factors may be identified by exploring the exposure region with cumulative doses of >350 mGy at this low-dose-rates.

Keywords: dose rate, dose, biological benefit, radiation hormesis, hormesis-coupled LNT theory

Introduction

Ionizing radiation causes tumors, and the probability of cancer development is proportional to radiation at high doses. However, the linearity of biological effects with respect to radiation dose remains unclear at low doses. 1 Consequently, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis 2 and radiation hormesis 3 have been proposed for low-dose exposure. We previously proposed a theory that radiation risk is approximately proportional to high doses, whereas hormesis effects occur at low doses. 4 However, the “hormesis-coupled LNT theory” does not account for dose-rate. Therefore, by integrating our theory with a previous report, 5 we predicted the dose-rate and cumulative dose at which hormesis effects are most effective.

Prediction

Red, blue, and yellow background areas in reference 5 represent “toxic,” “hormesis,” and “noneffect,” respectively. We calculated the doses (EL and EH) (Figure 1) that represent the boundary between “noneffect” and “hormesis” and between “hormesis” and “toxic” at some dose-rates. For example, EL = 81 mGy and EH = 1780 mGy at 0.52 mGy/h. Table 1 lists EL and EH for several dose-rates greater than 0.52 mGy/h. Notably, EL and EH cannot be estimated for dose-rates less than 0.52 mGy/h, because no toxic points are presented in reference 5.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Graph of equation (1), with E (mGy) on the horizontal axis and R(%) on the vertical axis. R(EL) was defined by the following equation: R(EL) = 30 – ρEH; ρ (≤0.42 Gy/h) = 0.00167%/mGy, ρ (>0.42 Gy/h) = 0.005%/mGy; See Table 1 for the values of EL and EH

Table 1.

The Boundary Dose (EL, EH) Between “Noneffect” and “Hormesis” and Between “Hormesis” and “Toxic” Obtained From Reference 5

Entry Dose rate E L E H
1 100 Gy/h 12 mGy 101 mGy
2 1 Gy/h 15 mGy 152 mGy
3 100 mGy/h 19 mGy 231 mGy
4 10 mGy/h 29 mGy 433 mGy
5 3.2 mGy/h 38 mGy 618 mGy
6 1 mGy/h 66 mGy 1220 mGy
7 0.9 mGy/h 69 mGy 1320 mGy
8 0.8 mGy/h 72 mGy 1430 mGy
9 0.7 mGy/h 75 mGy 1540 mGy
10 0.6 mGy/h 78 mGy 1660 mGy
11 0.52 mGy/h 81 mGy 1780 mGy

In our previously proposed equation,

R=R0+ρE−kP(0)aEe−aE (1)

we substitute specific values from previous literature for R0 and ρ (For the definition of R, see the sentence after next.). Assuming that the exposure from the Hiroshima atomic bomb was instantaneous, EH = 101 mGy at a dose-rate of 100 Gy/h is reasonable. The Ministry of the Environment’s view, based on Hiroshima atomic bomb data, 6 is that R0 = 30% and that the probability of cancer (R) increases by 0.5% per 100 mGy, so ρ = 5 × 10−3%/mGy. This value applies to high dose-rates (>0.42 Gy/h). The dose-rate effect is known, where high dose-rate irradiation has greater biological effects than low dose-rate irradiation. 7 This previous study 7 reported that the slope at 0.0007−0.8 R/min (3.7 × 10−4 − 0.42 Gy/h) is 0.334 times that at 72–90 R/min (36–47 Gy/h). Thus, we assumed that ρ at low dose-rates (≤0.42 Gy/h) is 0.00167%/mGy.

For instance, for 0.52 mGy/h, using EL = 81 mGy and EH = 1780 mGy, a and kP(0) in equation (1) are calculated as follows. When the increase in R when exposed to 1780 mGy (which is 0.00167 × 1780% = 2.97%) is considered an error, the R’s range between R(81) = 27.03% and R(1780) = 30% is considered “noneffect.” Substituting the values of EL and EH into the two R equations, we obtain a = 0.00185 and kP(0) = 24.1, yielding the following equation:

R=30+0.00167E−0.0445Ee−0.00185E

Graphically calculating the minimum value of this equation, we obtain R = 22.0% when E = 490 mGy, indicating a 5.0% hormesis effect based on R(81). Similar calculations for other dose-rates lead to mathematically satisfactory expressions for EL and EH, yielding minimum R values (Table 2).

Table 2.

Equation and Minimum Value of R Obtained From Table 1

Entry Equation of R Minimum value of R
1 R = 30 + 0.005E – 0.0637Ee–0.0252E R (32.6 mGy) = 29.2% = R (EL) – 0.3%
2 R = 30 + 0.005E – 0.0725Ee–0.0176E R (47.7 mGy) = 28.7% = R (EL) – 0.5%
3 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0277Ee–0.0122E R (70.3 mGy) = 29.3% = R (EL) – 0.3%
4 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0325Ee–0.00685E R (128 mGy) = 28.5% = R (EL) – 0.8%
5 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0347Ee–0.00491E R (180 mGy) = 27.7% = R (EL) – 1.3%
6 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0386Ee–0.00257E R (348 mGy) = 25.1% = R (EL) – 2.9%
7 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0396Ee–0.00240E R (374 mGy) = 24.6% = R (EL) – 3.2%
8 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0410Ee–0.00224E R (402 mGy) = 24.0% = R (EL) – 3.6%
9 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0421Ee–0.00209E R (432 mGy) = 23.3% = R (EL) – 4.1%
10 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0433Ee–0.00196E R (462 mGy) = 22.7% = R (EL) – 4.5%
11 R = 30 + 0.00167E – 0.0445Ee–0.00185E R (490 mGy) = 22.0% = R (EL) – 5.0%

Table 2 illustrates that at high dose-rates, the benefit from R (%) at EL is less than 1%; thus, even if a hormesis mechanism exists, the beneficial effect on living organisms would be virtually unobservable. Conversely, at low dose-rates, if a hormesis effect of >3% (R0 × 0.1) was achieved and the population is large enough, the phenomenon of biological benefit would be observable. In particular, the biological benefit via radiation can be observed at a dose-rate of <1 mGy/h, which is partially consistent with the theory of another study. 8 As a future direction, biologically beneficial factors may be identified by exploring the exposure region with cumulative doses of >350 mGy at dose-rates of <1 mGy/h.

Footnotes

Funding: The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The idea described in this manuscript was obtained on the basis of my other studies supported by research grants from the Radiation Effects Association, from the Nakatomi Foundation, from KAKENHI (23510069, 17K00558 and 23K11427), and from the Japan Prize Foundation. I am grateful to these foundations.

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katsuhito Kino https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0029-2360

References

  • 1.Tubiana M, Arengo A, Averbeck D, Masse R. Low-dose risk assessment. Radiat Res. 2007;167:742-744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168:1-64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Socol Y, Dobrzynski L, Doss M, et al. Commentary: Ethical issues of current health-protection policies on low-dose ionizing radiation. Dose Response. 2014;12:342-348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kino K. Calculations of the radiation dose for the maximum hormesis effect. Radiation. 2024;4:69-84. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yoshida K, Hoshi Y, Matsumoto A, Sakai K. A graphical review of radiogenic animal cancer data using the 'dose and dose-rate map'. SAR. 2008. https://inis.iaea.org/records/xsmxr-6yb51. accessed on 25 March 2026. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ministry of the Environment, Japan . Unified basic data on the health effects of radiation 2024. (Japanese). https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/rhm/current/03-04-03.html. accessed on 15 December 2025. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Russell WL, Kelly EM. Mutation frequencies in male mice and the estimation of genetic hazards of radiation in men. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1982;79:542-544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fornalski KW. Radioadaptation and radioresistance during deep space travels. J Space Saf Eng. 2022;9:385-389. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Dose-Response are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES