ArticleCritical reviews in toxicology2011
Is exposure to formaldehyde in air causally associated with leukemia?--A hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence analysis.
Article in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of associations between inhaled formaldehyde and lymphohematopoietic cancer through the integration of epidemiological and toxicological evidence with biological plausibility.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Pooled it
- Critical review and synthesis of the epidemiologic evidence on formaldehyde exposure and risk of leukemia and other lymphohematopoietic malignancies.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2012Pooled it
- An AI assistant for critically assessing and synthesizing clusters of journal articles.Global epidemiology · 2025Article
- Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review.Global epidemiology · 2022Article
- Formaldehyde Exposure and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- Cancer mortality in Korean workers occupationally exposed to methanol: a cohort study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2019Article
- Re-evaluation of the WHO (2010) formaldehyde indoor air quality guideline for cancer risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2017Review
- Comprehensive review of epidemiological and animal studies on the potential carcinogenic effects of nicotine per se.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2016Review
- Hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence evaluation and risk assessment for naphthalene carcinogenesis.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2016Review
- Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2013Review
- Bone marrow injury induced via oxidative stress in mice by inhalation exposure to formaldehyde.PloS one · 2013Article
- Recent trend in risk assessment of formaldehyde exposures from indoor air.Archives of toxicology · 2013Review
- A Systematic Review of Carcinogenic Outcomes and Potential Mechanisms from Exposure to 2,4-D and MCPA in the Environment.Journal of toxicology · 2013Article
- Incorporating Low-dose Epidemiology Data in a Chlorpyrifos Risk Assessment.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2013Article
- Occupational health risks of pathologists--results from a nationwide online questionnaire in Switzerland.BMC public health · 2012Article
- A critique of the European Commission document, "State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters".Critical reviews in toxicology · 2012Review
- Identifying an indoor air exposure limit for formaldehyde considering both irritation and cancer hazards.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent scientific debate has focused on the potential for inhaled formaldehyde to cause lymphohematopoietic cancers, particularly leukemias, in humans. The concern stems from certain epidemiology studies reporting an association, although particulars of endpoints and dosimetry are inconsistent across studies and several other studies show no such effects. Animal studies generally report neither hematotoxicity nor leukemia associated with formaldehyde inhalation, and hematotoxicity studies in humans are inconsistent. Formaldehyde's reactivity has been thought to preclude systemic exposure following inhalation, and its apparent inability to reach and affect the target tissues attacked by known leukemogens has, heretofore, led to skepticism regarding its potential to cause human lymphohematopoietic cancers. Recently, however, potential modes of action for formaldehyde leukemogenesis have been hypothesized, and it has been suggested that formaldehyde be identified as a known human leukemogen. In this article, we apply our hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence (HBWoE) approach to evaluate the large body of evidence regarding formaldehyde and leukemogenesis, attending to how human, animal, and mode-of-action results inform one another. We trace the logic of inference within and across all studies, and articulate how one could account for the suite of available observations under the various proposed hypotheses. Upon comparison of alternative proposals regarding what causal processes may have led to the array of observations as we see them, we conclude that the case for a causal association is weak and strains biological plausibility. Instead, apparent association between formaldehyde inhalation and leukemia in some human studies is better interpreted as due to chance or confounding.
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.