ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2017
Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.
Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose-Response Relationships for Lung Tumor and Pleural Mesothelioma Induction by Repetitive Intratracheal Instillation of a Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube, MWCNT-7, in Rats: Comparison with Inhalation Carcinogenicity Based on Lung Burden.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Novel Sampling and Analytical Framework for Airborne Carbon Nanotubes.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Novel pyrrolo[2,1-RSC advances · 2025Article
- Critical values for dimensional parameters of mesotheliomagenic mineral fibers: evidence from the dimensions and rigidity of MWCNT.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- A Graphene-Based Bioactive Product with a Non-Immunological Impact on Mononuclear Cell Populations from Healthy Volunteers.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Update on Occupational Cancer for Better Cancer Prevention and Control.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
- Unexpected Inhibitory Role of Silica Nanoparticles on Lung Cancer Development by Promoting M1 Polarization of Macrophages.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- House Dust Mite Extract Forms a Der p 2 Corona on Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Implications for Allergic Airway Disease.Environmental science. Nano · 2024Article
- Cullin 4B Ubiquitin Ligase Is Important for Cell Survival and Regulates TGF-β1 Expression in Pleural Mesothelioma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Time-Course of Transcriptomic Change in the Lungs of F344 Rats Repeatedly Exposed to a Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube in a 2-Year Test.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Current causes of mesothelioma: how has the asbestos ban changed the perspective?Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2023Review
- Biomarkers of nanomaterials hazard from multi-layer data.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Induce Fibrosis and Telomere Length Alterations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Two-year intermittent exposure of a multiwalled carbon nanotube by intratracheal instillation induces lung tumors and pleural mesotheliomas in F344 rats.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2022Article
- Toxicity of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials in the Human Lung: A Comparative In-Vitro Study.Tanaffos · 2022Article
- Evaluating the cytotoxicity and pathogenicity of multi-walled carbon nanotube through weighted gene co-expression network analysis: a nanotoxicogenomics study.BMC genomic data · 2022Article
- Retained particle surface area dose drives inflammation in rat lungs following acute, subacute, and subchronic inhalation of nanomaterials.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2021Article
- In vitro-in vivo correlations of pulmonary inflammogenicity and genotoxicity of MWCNT.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In an evaluation of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) for the IARC Monograph 111, the Mechanisms Subgroup was tasked with assessing the strength of evidence on the potential carcinogenicity of CNTs in humans. The mechanistic evidence was considered to be not strong enough to alter the evaluations based on the animal data. In this paper, we provide an extended, in-depth examination of the in vivo and in vitro experimental studies according to current hypotheses on the carcinogenicity of inhaled particles and fibers. We cite additional studies of CNTs that were not available at the time of the IARC meeting in October 2014, and extend our evaluation to include carbon nanofibers (CNFs). Finally, we identify key data gaps and suggest research needs to reduce uncertainty. The focus of this review is on the cancer risk to workers exposed to airborne CNT or CNF during the production and use of these materials. The findings of this review, in general, affirm those of the original evaluation on the inadequate or limited evidence of carcinogenicity for most types of CNTs and CNFs at this time, and possible carcinogenicity of one type of CNT (MWCNT-7). The key evidence gaps to be filled by research include: investigation of possible associations between in vitro and early-stage in vivo events that may be predictive of lung cancer or mesothelioma, and systematic analysis of dose-response relationships across materials, including evaluation of the influence of physico-chemical properties and experimental factors on the observation of nonmalignant and malignant endpoints.
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.