Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29847084›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2018

Conditional Toxicity Value (CTV) Predictor: An

Jessica A Wignall, Eugene Muratov, Alexander Sedykh, Kathryn Z Guyton, Alexander Tropsha, Ivan Rusyn, Weihsueh A Chiu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Estimating mouthing exposure to chemicals in children's products.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jessica A WignallICF, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Eugene MuratovLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Alexander SedykhLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Kathryn Z GuytonMonographs Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
Alexander TropshaLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Ivan RusynDepartment of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Weihsueh A ChiuDepartment of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Funding

Single cell, multi-parametric high throughput platform to classify endocrine disruptor potential of mixturesP42ES027704 · NIEHS · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI Weihsueh A Chiu · 2017 to 2026
$21.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES027704World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman health assessments synthesize human, animal, and mechanistic data to produce toxicity values that are key inputs to risk-based decision making. Traditional assessments are data-, time-, and resource-intensive, and they cannot be developed for most environmental chemicals owing to a lack of appropriate data.

objectivesAs recommended by the National Research Council, we propose a solution for predicting toxicity values for data-poor chemicals through development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models.

methodsWe used a comprehensive database of chemicals with existing regulatory toxicity values from U.S. federal and state agencies to develop quantitative QSAR models. We compared QSAR-based model predictions to those based on high-throughput screening (HTS) assays.

resultsQSAR models for noncancer threshold-based values and cancer slope factors had cross-validation-based Q

conclusionsAn

Indexed as

AnimalsComputer SimulationDatabases, FactualHumansQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID29847084
PMCPMC6071978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.