The Potential of Fasting and Caloric Restriction to Mitigate Radiation Damage—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detrimental health effects from ionizing radiation to living organisms is one of the key concerns identified and addressed by Radiation Protection institutions, nationally and internationally on Earth and for human spaceflight. Thus, new methods for mitigating the adverse effects of ionizing radiation are urgently needed for terrestrial health and deep space exploration. Caloric restriction and (intermittent-) fasting have been reported to elicit a variety of immediate and long-term physiological effects. The rapidly growing body of evidence of research studies investigating the effects of caloric restriction and dietary fasting points toward a multitude of benefits affecting numerous physiological systems. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence of caloric restriction and dietary fasting on the physiological response to ionizing radiation in humans and animals. All experimental studies of humans, animals, and eukaryotic cell lines available in PubMed, Cochrane library, and specialized databases were searched comparing irradiation post-caloric restriction or fasting to a non-nutritionally restricted control group on a broad range of outcomes from molecular to clinical responses. The initial search yielded 2,653 records. The final analysis included 11 studies. Most studies investigated survival rate or cancer occurrence in animals. Included studies did not reveal any benefit from pre exposure caloric restriction, except when performed with post radiation caloric restriction. However, the effects of pre-exposure fasting suggest increased resilience to ionizing radiation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".