Response to letter to the editor by Cohen et al. (2014) "Re: Waalkes et al.: Lung tumors in mice induced by "whole-life" inorganic arsenic exposure at human-relevant doses, Arch Toxicol, 2014".

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A review of arsenic exposure and lung cancer.Toxicology research · 2019
   Review
2. Dose and Diet - Sources of Arsenic Intake in Mouse in Utero Exposure Scenarios.Chemical research in toxicology · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to the Waalkes et al., Letter to the editor concerning our "letter to the editor, Re: Lung tumors in mice induced by "whole-life" inorganic arsenic exposure at human relevant doses, Waalkes et al., Arch Toxicol, 2014".2015
• Comment on
  Lung tumors in mice induced by "whole-life" inorganic arsenic exposure at human-relevant doses.2014
• Comment on
  Re: Waalkes et al.: Lung tumors in mice induced by "whole-life" inorganic arsenic exposure at human-relevant doses, Arch Toxicol, 2014.2014

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as