Citation Drift in the Use of a Foundational Low-Dose Risk-Assessment Paper: A Citation Context Analysis of Crump et al. (1976)

Scientific papers can acquire meanings that differ from their original arguments, yet citation counts alone cannot reveal such changes. This study examined how the work of Crump and co-workers in 1976, published as a foundational paper on low-dose linearity in carcinogenic risk assessment, has been cited and represented over time. A cited-reference search of the Web of Science Core Collection was conducted on 1 June 2026 using the paper’s title. Of 350 retrieved records, 318 citing papers were included after excluding inaccessible, duplicate, incorrect, non-English, or non-substantive records. Each paper was coded for citation context, stance, accuracy, and accuracy issue using a hybrid deductive–inductive scheme. From 1977 through 2015, 89.4–97.0% of citations remained within broad original-scope contexts, including carcinogenic risk assessment, multistage modeling, low-dose extrapolation, and threshold debate. In 2016–2026, original-scope contexts declined to 38.5% (25/65), while peripheral, generic, or unrelated dose–response uses increased to 52.3% (34/65). Citation stance remained mostly neutral or supportive, but accurate or acceptable citations fell from over 70% before 2016 to 33.8% (22/65) in 2016–2026, while inaccurate or unrelated attributions rose to 53.8% (35/65). These findings illustrate citation drift in the citation history of foundational paper written by Crump and co-workers in 1976 and underscore the need for careful source verification considering that classic references may become shorthand in contemporary scholarly, regulatory, and public-health discussions.