ReviewAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology2015
Xenobiotic pulmonary exposure and systemic cardiovascular response via neurological links.
Review in American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-body inhalation of nano-sized carbon black: a surrogate model of military burn pit exposure.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Exacerbation of Thrombotic Responses to Silver Nanoparticles in Hypertensive Mouse Model.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
- Identification and quantification of gold engineered nanomaterials and impaired fluid transfer across the rat placenta via ex vivo perfusion.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2019Article
- Impact of pulmonary exposure to gold core silver nanoparticles of different size and capping agents on cardiovascular injury.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cardiovascular response to xenobiotic particle exposure has been increasingly studied over the last two decades, producing an extraordinary scope and depth of research findings. With the flourishing of nanotechnology, the term "xenobiotic particles" has expanded to encompass not only air pollution particulate matter (PM) but also anthropogenic particles, such as engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Historically, the majority of research in these fields has focused on pulmonary exposure and the adverse physiological effects associated with a host inflammatory response or direct particle-tissue interactions. Because these hypotheses can neither account entirely for the deleterious cardiovascular effects of xenobiotic particle exposure nor their time course, the case for substantial neurological involvement is apparent. Indeed, considerable evidence suggests that not only is neural involvement a significant contributor but also a reality that needs to be investigated more thoroughly when assessing xenobiotic particle toxicities. Therefore, the scope of this review is several-fold. First, we provide a brief overview of the major anatomical components of the central and peripheral nervous systems, giving consideration to the potential biologic targets affected by inhaled particles. Second, the autonomic arcs and mechanisms that may be involved are reviewed. Third, the cardiovascular outcomes following neurological responses are discussed. Lastly, unique problems, future risks, and hurdles associated with xenobiotic particle exposure are discussed. A better understanding of these neural issues may facilitate research that in conjunction with existing research, will ultimately prevent the untoward cardiovascular outcomes associated with PM exposures and/or identify safe ENMs for the advancement of human 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.