ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2018
In vitro to in vivo benchmark dose comparisons to inform risk assessment of quantum dot nanomaterials.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Application of Inorganic Nanomaterials in Cultural Heritage Conservation, Risk of Toxicity, and Preventive Measures.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Aerosol physicochemical determinants of carbon black and ozone inhalation co-exposure induced pulmonary toxicity.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023Article
- Toxicokinetics, dose-response, and risk assessment of nanomaterials: Methodology, challenges, and future perspectives.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Approach towardEnvironmental science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Engineered nanomaterials are currently under review for their potential toxicity; however, their use in consumer/commercial products has continued to outpace risk assessments. In vitro methods may be utilized as tools to improve the efficiency of risk assessment approaches. We propose a framework to compare relationships between previously published in vitro and in vivo toxicity assessments of cadmium-selenium containing quantum dots (QDs) using benchmark dose (BMD) and dosimetric assessment methods. Although data were limited this approach was useful for identifying sensitive assays and strains. In vitro studies assessed effects of QDs in three pulmonary cell types across two mouse strains. Significant dose-response effects were modeled and a standardized method of BMD analysis was performed as a function of both exposure dose and dosimetric dose. In vivo studies assessed pulmonary effects of QD exposure across eight mouse strains. BMD analysis served as a basis for relative comparison with in vitro studies. We found consistent responses in common endpoints between in vitro and in vivo studies. Strain sensitivity was consistent between in vitro and in vivo studies, showing A/J mice more sensitive to QDs. Cell types were found to differentially take up QDs. Dosimetric adjustments identified similar sensitivity among cell types. Thus, BMD analysis can be used as an effective tool to compare the sensitivity of different strains, cell types, and assays to QDs. These methods allow for in vitro assays to be used to predict in vivo responses, improve the efficiency of in vivo studies, and allow for prioritization of nanomaterial assessments. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.
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.