ReviewToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2018
The Impact of Novel Assessment Methodologies in Toxicology on Green Chemistry and Chemical Alternatives.
Review in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 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
- The EU-ToxRisk method documentation, data processing and chemical testing pipeline for the regulatory use of new approach methods.Archives of toxicology · 2020Article
- The Current Understanding of Autophagy in Nanomaterial Toxicity and Its Implementation in Safety Assessment-Related Alternative Testing Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Multi-dimensional in vitro bioactivity profiling for grouping of glycol ethers.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2019Article
- A Farewell to Harms: The Audacity to Design Safer Products.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of experimental toxicology is rapidly advancing by incorporating novel techniques and methods that provide a much more granular view into the mechanisms of potential adverse effects of chemical exposures on human health. The data from various in vitro assays and computational models are useful not only for increasing confidence in hazard and risk decisions, but also are enabling better, faster and cheaper assessment of a greater number of compounds, mixtures, and complex products. This is of special value to the field of green chemistry where design of new materials or alternative uses of existing ones is driven, at least in part, by considerations of safety. This article reviews the state of the science and decision-making in scenarios when little to no data may be available to draw conclusions about which choice in green chemistry is "safer." It is clear that there is no "one size fits all" solution and multiple data streams need to be weighed in making a decision. Moreover, the overall level of familiarity of the decision-makers and scientists alike with new assessment methodologies, their validity, value and limitations is evolving. Thus, while the "impact" of the new developments in toxicology on the field of green chemistry is great already, it is premature to conclude that the data from new assessment methodologies have been widely accepted yet.
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.