ReviewToxicology reports2018
What is the meaning of 'A compound is carcinogenic'?
Review in Toxicology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer and Environmental Xenobiotics: Mechanisms, Controversies, and Innovations.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- A framework for evaluating less-than-lifetime exposures: advancing toxicological risk assessment for drinking water quality.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Recent advances in AI-based toxicity prediction for drug discovery.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Review
- Metabolic Carcinogenesis.Cancer treatment and research · 2024Review
- Review article: do stimulant laxatives damage the gut? A critical analysis of current knowledge.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Putative role of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in cancer pathology and immunotherapy: Can this be a hidden treasure, especially for the elderly?Cancer medicine · 2023Review
- Trends in science on glyphosate toxicity: a scientometric study.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Identification of Time-Invariant Biomarkers for Non-Genotoxic Hepatocarcinogen Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemical Carcinogens are compounds which can cause cancer in humans and experimental animals. This property is attributed to many chemicals in the public discussion, resulting in a widespread perception of danger and threat. In contrast, a scientific analysis of the wide and non-critical use of the term 'carcinogenic' is warranted. First, it has to be clarified if the compound acts in a genotoxic or non-genotoxic manner. In the latter case, an ineffective (safe) threshold dose without cancer risk can be assumed. In addition, it needs to be investigated if the mode-of-action causing tumors in laboratory animals is relevant at all for humans. In case the compound is clearly directly genotoxic, an ineffective threshold dose cannot be assumed. However, also in this case it is evident that high doses of the compound are generally associated with a high cancer risk, low doses with a lower one. Based on dose-response data from animal experiments, quantification of the cancer risk is carried out by mathematical modeling. If the safety margin between the lowest carcinogenic dose in animals and the relevant level of exposure in humans exceeds 10,000, the degree of concern is classified as low. Cases, where the compound turns out to be genotoxic in one study or one test only but not in others or only
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.