ReviewToxicology letters2009
Chemical databases for environmental health and clinical research.
Review in Toxicology letters, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- CTD Anatomy: analyzing chemical-induced phenotypes and exposures from an anatomical perspective, with implications for environmental health studies.Current research in toxicology · 2021Article
- Public data sources to support systems toxicology applications.Current opinion in toxicology · 2019Article
- The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database's 10th year anniversary: update 2015.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- Aquatic models, genomics and chemical risk management.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP · 2012Article
- CancerResource: a comprehensive database of cancer-relevant proteins and compound interactions supported by experimental knowledge.Nucleic acids research · 2011Article
- The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: update 2011.Nucleic acids research · 2011Article
- T3DB: a comprehensively annotated database of common toxins and their targets.Nucleic acids research · 2010Article
- Text mining and manual curation of chemical-gene-disease networks for the comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD).BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing number of publicly available biological databases reflects the evolving need for managing and evaluating abundant and complex data in biological, clinical and computational research. Currently there are over 1000 biologically relevant databases in the public domain with varied content and diverse approaches to capturing and presenting data. This review summarizes the comparatively small niche of sophisticated databases and other resources that aim to enhance understanding of chemicals and their biological actions. The databases reviewed include 1 that emphasizes environmental chemicals and 9 that emphasize drugs and small molecules. These databases and their associated resources are incrementally strengthening the expanding field of toxicogenomics-based research by providing centralized sources of manually and computationally curated datasets and highly sophisticated tools for the meta-analysis of continually increasing environmental chemical, drug and small-molecule datasets.
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.