ReviewToxicology research2018
Goodbye to the bioassay.
Review in Toxicology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chemical carcinogen safety testing: OECD expert group international consensus on the development of an integrated approach for the testing and assessment of chemical non-genotoxic carcinogens.Archives of toxicology · 2020Guideline
- The use of cultured human hepatocytes as a test system to evaluate cell proliferation as a key event in nongenotoxic carcinogenesis.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Comparative case study on NAMs: towards enhancing specific target organ toxicity analysis.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Review article: do stimulant laxatives damage the gut? A critical analysis of current knowledge.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.Archives of toxicology · 2023Review
- New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!Environment international · 2023Review
- Article
- A Collaborative Initiative to Establish Genomic Biomarkers for Assessing Tumorigenic Potential to Reduce Reliance on Conventional Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022Article
- Integration of Epigenetic Mechanisms into Non-Genotoxic Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Focus on DNA Methylation and Histone Modifications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Applicability of Scrape Loading-Dye Transfer Assay for Non-Genotoxic Carcinogen Testing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Threshold of Toxicological Concern-An Update for Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Article
- Quantification of cancer driver mutations in human breast and lung DNA using targeted, error-corrected CarcSeq.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2020Article
- Carcinogenicity assessment: Addressing the challenges of cancer and chemicals in the environment.Environment international · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is time to say goodbye to the standard two-year rodent bioassay. While a few, primarily genotoxic, compounds which are clearly associated with human cancer test positive in the bioassay, there is no science-based, sound foundation for presuming it provides either a valid broad (across different chemicals) capability for discerning potential human carcinogens or a valid starting point for making human risk assessment decisions. The two basic assumptions underlying the bioassay are: (1) rodent carcinogens are human carcinogens; and (2) results obtained at high doses are indicative of results that will occur at lower, environmentally relevant, doses. Both of these assumptions are not correct. Furthermore, a reevaluation of National Toxicology Program bioassay data has revealed that if the dose group size were increased from 50 to 200 rodents per group the number of bioassays deemed to be positive would increase from approximately 50% to very close to 100%. Thus, under the extreme conditions of the bioassay (
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.