Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23641967›Full record

ArticleNanotoxicology2014

Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment--report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10.

Agnes G Oomen, Peter M J Bos, Teresa F Fernandes, Kerstin Hund-Rinke, Diana Boraschi, Hugh J Byrne, Karin Aschberger, Stefania Gottardo, Frank von der Kammer, Dana Kühnel and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nanotoxicology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Safety assessment of nanomaterials using an advanced decision-making framework, the DF4nanoGrouping.Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

16 authors.

Agnes G OomenIVM, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment , Bilthoven , The Netherlands.
Peter M J Bos
Teresa F Fernandes
Kerstin Hund-Rinke
Diana Boraschi
Hugh J Byrne
Karin Aschberger
Stefania Gottardo
Frank von der Kammer
Dana Kühnel
Danail Hristozov
Antonio Marcomini
Lucia Migliore
Janeck Scott-Fordsmand
Peter Wick
Robert Landsiedel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bringing together topic-related European Union (EU)-funded projects, the so-called "NanoSafety Cluster" aims at identifying key areas for further research on risk assessment procedures for nanomaterials (NM). The outcome of NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10, this commentary presents a vision for concern-driven integrated approaches for the (eco-)toxicological testing and assessment (IATA) of NM. Such approaches should start out by determining concerns, i.e., specific information needs for a given NM based on realistic exposure scenarios. Recognised concerns can be addressed in a set of tiers using standardised protocols for NM preparation and testing. Tier 1 includes determining physico-chemical properties, non-testing (e.g., structure-activity relationships) and evaluating existing data. In tier 2, a limited set of in vitro and in vivo tests are performed that can either indicate that the risk of the specific concern is sufficiently known or indicate the need for further testing, including details for such testing. Ecotoxicological testing begins with representative test organisms followed by complex test systems. After each tier, it is evaluated whether the information gained permits assessing the safety of the NM so that further testing can be waived. By effectively exploiting all available information, IATA allow accelerating the risk assessment process and reducing testing costs and animal use (in line with the 3Rs principle implemented in EU Directive 2010/63/EU). Combining material properties, exposure, biokinetics and hazard data, information gained with IATA can be used to recognise groups of NM based upon similar modes of action. Grouping of substances in return should form integral part of the IATA themselves.

Indexed as

NanostructuresRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsAnimalsCell LineEuropean UnionHumans

Identifiers

PMID23641967
PMCPMC4002633

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.