ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2015
Building a robust 21st century chemical testing program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: recommendations for strengthening scientific engagement.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Animal models of endocrine disruption.Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism · 2018Review
- Functional classification of protein toxins as a basis for bioinformatic screening.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Biochemical strategies for the detection and detoxification of toxic chemicals in the environment.World journal of biological chemistry · 2017Article
- Improving the prediction of organism-level toxicity through integration of chemical, protein target and cytotoxicity qHTS data.Toxicology research · 2016Article
- High-Content Assay Multiplexing for Toxicity Screening in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes and Hepatocytes.Assay and drug development technologies · 2015Article
- ToxCast™ wants you: recommendations for engaging the broader scientific community.Environmental health perspectives · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiological pathway-based chemical testing approaches are central to the National Research Council's vision for 21st century toxicity testing. Approaches such as high-throughput in vitro screening offer the potential to evaluate thousands of chemicals faster and cheaper than ever before and to reduce testing on laboratory animals. Collaborative scientific engagement is important in addressing scientific issues arising in new federal chemical testing programs and for achieving stakeholder support of their use.
objectivesWe present two recommendations specifically focused on increasing scientific engagement in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ToxCast™ initiative. Through these recommendations we seek to bolster the scientific foundation of federal chemical testing efforts such as ToxCast™ and the public health decisions that rely upon them. DISCUSSION: Environmental Defense Fund works across disciplines and with diverse groups to improve the science underlying environmental health decisions. We propose that the U.S. EPA can strengthen the scientific foundation of its new chemical testing efforts and increase support for them in the scientific research community by a) expanding and diversifying scientific input into the development and application of new chemical testing methods through collaborative workshops, and b) seeking out mutually beneficial research partnerships.
conclusionsOur recommendations provide concrete actions for the U.S. EPA to increase and diversify engagement with the scientific research community in its ToxCast™ initiative. We believe that such engagement will help ensure that new chemical testing data are scientifically robust and that the U.S. EPA gains the support and acceptance needed to sustain new testing efforts to protect public health.
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.