ReviewComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2019
Physiologically based mathematical models of nanomaterials for regulatory toxicology: A review.
Review in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safe and sustainable by design (SSbD) for nanotechnology: scientific foundations, global policy perspectives, and industrial practice.Nano convergence · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation and selection of optimal QSAR-based machine learning model for liver toxicity prediction.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Investigating nanoplastics toxicity using advanced stem cell-based intestinal and lungFrontiers in toxicology · 2023Review
- How Structured Metadata Acquisition Contributes to the Reproducibility of Nanosafety Studies: Evaluation by a Round-Robin Test.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Transcriptomics in Toxicogenomics, Part I: Experimental Design, Technologies, Publicly Available Data, and Regulatory Aspects.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Computational models for the assessment of manufactured nanomaterials: Development of model reporting standards and mapping of the model landscape.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of physiologically based (PB) models to support safety assessments in the field of nanotechnology has grown steadily during the last decade. This review reports on the availability of PB models for toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) processes, including
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.