ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2019
Commentary: the chronic inhalation study in rats for assessing lung cancer risk may be better than its reputation.
Article in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unexpected Inhibitory Role of Silica Nanoparticles on Lung Cancer Development by Promoting M1 Polarization of Macrophages.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- Advancing chemical safety assessment through an omics-based characterization of the test system-chemical interaction.Frontiers in toxicology · 2023Article
- Burden of Disease (BoD) Assessment to Estimate Risk Factors Impact in a Real Nanomanufacturing Scenario.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predicting nanomaterials pulmonary toxicity in animals by cell culture models: Achievements and perspectives.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Towards health-based nano reference values (HNRVs) for occupational exposure: Recommendations from an expert panel.NanoImpact · 2022Article
- A methodology for developing key events to advance nanomaterial-relevant adverse outcome pathways to inform risk assessment.Nanotoxicology · 2021Article
- Adverse Outcome Pathway Development for Assessment of Lung Carcinogenicity by Nanoparticles.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Article
- Particle characterization and toxicity in C57BL/6 mice following instillation of five different diesel exhaust particles designed to differ in physicochemical properties.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2020Article
- Comment on Saber et al. (2019), "Commentary: the chronic inhalation study in rats for assessing lung cancer risk may be better than its reputation".Particle and fibre toxicology · 2020Article
- A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2020Article
- Translating Scientific Advances in the AOP Framework to Decision Making for Nanomaterials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, Borm and Driscoll published a commentary discussing grouping of Poorly Soluble particles of Low Toxicity (PSLTs) and the use of rats as an animal model for human hazard assessment of PSLTs (Particle and Fibre Toxicology (2019) 16(1):11). The commentary was based on the scientific opinion of several international experts on these topics. The general conclusion from the authors was a cautious approach towards using chronic inhalation studies in rats for human hazard assessment of PSLTs. This was based on evidence of inhibition of particle clearance leading to overload in the rats after high dose exposure, and a suggested over reactivity of rat lung cancer responses compared to human risk.As a response to the commentary, we here discuss evidence from the scientific literature showing that a) diesel exhaust particles, carbon black nanoparticles and TiO
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.