ArticleAmerican journal of public health2001
A bold new direction for environmental health research.
Article in American journal of public health, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trust, benefit, satisfaction, and burden: a randomized controlled trial to reduce cancer risk through African-American churches.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Trial
- Drivers of and Obstacles to the Adoption of Toxicogenomics for Chemical Risk Assessment: Insights from Social Science Perspectives.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
- Community-based participatory research: a vehicle to promote public engagement for environmental health in China.Environmental health perspectives · 2008Article
- Gene-environment interactions in the development of complex disease phenotypes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2008Article
- Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities?American journal of public health · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biotechnology revolution has opened new opportunities for addressing current inadequacies in decision making regarding environmental health. Strategic investments need to be made (1) to develop high-throughput technologies that could accelerate toxicity testing and generate a mechanistic understanding of toxicity, (2) to incorporate individual susceptibility into risk assessments, and (3) to establish a rational basis for testing and regulatory decision making. New initiatives of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, including the Environmental Genome Project and the Toxicogenomics Center, are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.