ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives
Scientific considerations for evaluating cancer bioassays conducted by the Ramazzini Institute.
Review in Environmental health perspectives. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde on multi-organ genomic mutation landscapes.Cell biology and toxicology · 2026Article
- Systematic evaluation of the evidence base on ethylCurrent research in toxicology · 2026Review
- Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Review
- Genome-scale multi-organ analysis of mutagenic effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde in Sprague Dawley rats.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Systematic evaluation of the evidence base on methylCurrent research in toxicology · 2025Review
- Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Authors' response to Ashley Roberts' letter to the editor on aspartame and cancer.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Cancer mortality in Korean workers occupationally exposed to methanol: a cohort study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2019Article
- EFSA's toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2019Article
- Permitted Daily Exposure for Diisopropyl Ether as a Residual Solvent in Pharmaceuticals.Toxicological research · 2018Article
- Statement on the validity of the conclusions of a mouse carcinogenicity study on sucralose (E 955) performed by the Ramazzini Institute.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- An Integrated Experimental Design for the Assessment of Multiple Toxicological End Points in Rat Bioassays.Environmental health perspectives · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Ramazzini Institute (RI) has completed nearly 400 cancer bioassays on > 200 compounds. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and others have suggested that study design and protocol differences between the RI and other laboratories by may contribute to controversy regarding cancer hazard findings, principally findings on lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate RI study design, protocol differences, and accuracy of tumor diagnoses for their impact on carcinogenic hazard characterization.
methodsWe analyzed the findings from a recent Pathology Working Group (PWG) review of RI procedures and tumor diagnoses, evaluated consistency of RI and other laboratory findings for chemicals identified by the RI as positive for lymphoma/leukemia, and examined evidence for a number of other issues raised regarding RI bioassays. The RI cancer bioassay design and protocols were evaluated in the context of relevant risk assessment guidance from international authorities. DISCUSSION: Although the PWG identified close agreement with RI diagnoses for most tumor types, it did not find close agreement for lymphoma/leukemia of the respiratory tract or for neoplasms of the inner ear and cranium. Here we discuss a) the implications of the PWG findings, particularly lymphoma diagnostic issues; b) differences between RI studies and those from other laboratories that are relevant to evaluating RI cancer bioassays; and c) future work that may help resolve some concerns.
conclusionsWe concluded that a) issues related to respiratory tract infections have complicated diagnoses at that site (i.e., lymphoma/leukemia), as well as for neoplasms of the inner ear and cranium, and b) there is consistency and value in RI studies for identification of other chemical-related neoplasia.
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.