ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2017
Current Knowledge on the Use of Computational Toxicology in Hazard Assessment of Metallic Engineered Nanomaterials.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational Nanotoxicology Models for Environmental Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review and Prospects on the Ecotoxicity of Mixtures of Nanoparticles and Hybrid Nanomaterials.Environmental science & technology · 2022Review
- Experimental and Computational Nanotoxicology-Complementary Approaches for Nanomaterial Hazard Assessment.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- FAIRification of nanosafety data to improve applicability of (Q)SAR approaches: A case study onComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Probing nano-QSAR to assess the interactions between carbon nanoparticles and a SARS-CoV-2 RNA fragment.Ecotoxicology and environmental safety · 2021Article
- Carbon Nanotubes and Other Engineered Nanoparticles Induced Pathophysiology on Mesothelial Cells and Mesothelial Membranes.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Review
- Risk Assessment and Risk Minimization in Nanomedicine: A Need for Predictive, Alternative, and 3Rs Strategies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As listed by the European Chemicals Agency, the three elements in evaluating the hazards of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) include the integration and evaluation of toxicity data, categorization and labeling of ENMs, and derivation of hazard threshold levels for human health and the environment. Assessing the hazards of ENMs solely based on laboratory tests is time-consuming, resource intensive, and constrained by ethical considerations. The adoption of computational toxicology into this task has recently become a priority. Alternative approaches such as (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ((Q)SAR) and read-across are of significant help in predicting nanotoxicity and filling data gaps, and in classifying the hazards of ENMs to individual species. Thereupon, the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) approach is able to serve the establishment of ENM hazard thresholds sufficiently protecting the ecosystem. This article critically reviews the current knowledge on the development of in silico models in predicting and classifying the hazard of metallic ENMs, and the development of SSDs for metallic ENMs. Further discussion includes the significance of well-curated experimental datasets and the interpretation of toxicity mechanisms of metallic ENMs based on reported models. An outlook is also given on future directions of research in this frontier.
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.