Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26314262›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2015

Toxicology: a discipline in need of academic anchoring--the point of view of the German Society of Toxicology.

U Gundert-Remy, H Barth, A Bürkle, G H Degen, R Landsiedel

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Systems bioengineering approaches for developmental toxicology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Review
  2. Perspectives in Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2016
    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

5 authors.

U Gundert-RemyInstitut für Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Charité, Berlin, Germany. ursula.gundert-remy@bfr.bund.de.
H BarthInstitut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
A BürkleMolecular Toxicology Group, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
G H DegenLeibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung, TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
R LandsiedelExperimentelle Toxikologie und Ökologie BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paper describes the importance of toxicology as a discipline, its past achievements, current scientific challenges, and future development. Toxicological expertise is instrumental in the reduction of human health risks arising from chemicals and drugs. Toxicological assessment is needed to evaluate evidence and arguments, whether or not there is a scientific base for concern. The immense success already achieved by toxicological work is exemplified by reduced pollution of air, soil, water, and safer working places. Predominantly predictive toxicological testing is derived from the findings to assess risks to humans and the environment. Assessment of the adversity of molecular effects (including epigenetic effects), the effects of mixtures, and integration of exposure and biokinetics into in vitro testing are emerging challenges for toxicology. Toxicology is a translational science with its base in fundamental science. Academic institutions play an essential part by providing scientific innovation and education of young scientists.

Indexed as

AnimalsEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsGermanyHumansRisk AssessmentSocieties, ScientificToxicity TestsToxicologyEnvironmental PollutantsAcademiaIn silico toxicologyIn vitro toxicologyOmicsRegulatory toxicologyToxicologyTranslational science

Identifiers

PMID26314262
PMCPMC4572062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.