Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22437821›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2012

The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment.

Michael Balls, Robert D Combes, Nirmala Bhogal

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael BallsFRAME, Nottingham, UK. michael.balls@btopenworld.com
Robert D Combes
Nirmala Bhogal
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments · GBOldham Council · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing concern that insurmountable differences between humans and laboratory animals limit the relevance and reliability for hazard identification and risk assessment purposes of animal data produced by traditional toxicity test procedures. A way forward is offered by the emerging new technologies, which can be directly applied to human material or even to human beings themselves. This promises to revolutionise the evaluation of the safety of chemicals and chemical products of various kinds and, in particular, pharmaceuticals. The available and developing technologies are summarised and it is emphasised that they will need to be used selectively, in integrated and intelligent testing strategies, which, in addition to being scientifically sound, must be manageable and affordable. Examples are given of proposed testing strategies for general chemicals, cosmetic ingredients, candidate pharmaceuticals, inhaled substances, nanoparticles and neurotoxicity.

Indexed as

AnimalsChemical and Drug Induced Liver InjuryHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID22437821
PMCPMC7122993
OpenAlexW79310657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.