Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30370003›Full record

ReviewToxicological research2018

Quantitative Approaches to Assess Key Carcinogenic Events of Genotoxic Carcinogens.

Shoji Fukushima, Min Gi, Masaki Fujioka, Anna Kakehashi, Hideki Wanibuchi, Michiharu Matsumoto

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicological research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Article
  3. Concept for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Substances in Population-Based Human Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shoji FukushimaAssociation for Promotion of Research on Risk Assessment, Nakagawa, Nagoya, Japan.
Min GiDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Abeno, Osaka, Japan.
Masaki FujiokaDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Abeno, Osaka, Japan.
Anna KakehashiDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Abeno, Osaka, Japan.
Hideki WanibuchiDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Abeno, Osaka, Japan.
Michiharu MatsumotoJapan Bioassay Research Center, Hadano, Kanagawa, Japan.
Osaka City University · JPJapan Association for Development of Community Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical carcinogenesis is a multistep process. Genotoxic carcinogens, which are DNA-reactive, induce DNA adduct formation and genetic alterations in target cells, thereby generating mutated cells (initiation). Subsequently, preneoplastic lesions appear through clonal proliferation of the mutated cells and transform into tumors (promotion and progression). Many factors may influence these processes in a dose-dependent manner. Therefore, quantitative analysis plays an important role in studies on the carcinogenic threshold of genotoxic carcinogens. Herein, we present data on the relationship between key carcinogenic events and their deriving point of departure (PoD). Their PoDs were also compared to those of the carcinogenesis pathway. In an experiment, the liver of rats exposed to 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo-(4,5-

Indexed as

Cancer risk assessmentGenotoxic carcinogenIQLinear no-threshold carcinogenicityMeIQxPoint of departure

Identifiers

PMID30370003
PMCPMC6195881
OpenAlexW2898794275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.