ReviewNature reviews. Endocrinology2021
From Wingspread to CLARITY: a personal trajectory.
Review in Nature reviews. Endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Studying endocrine disrupting chemicals from molecular targets to mixture model approach: lessons from the thyroid model.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Review
- Endocrine disruptors in plastics alter β-cell physiology and increase the risk of diabetes mellitus.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2023Review
- Changes in the European Union definition for endocrine disruptors: how many molecules remain a cause for concern? The example of crop protection products used in agriculture in France in the six last decades.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Scientific discrepancies in European regulatory proposals on endocrine disruptors-REACH regulation quo vadis?Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the three decades since endocrine disruption was conceptualized at the Wingspread Conference, we have witnessed the growth of this multidisciplinary field and the accumulation of evidence showing the deleterious health effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. It is only within the past decade that, albeit slowly, some changes regarding regulatory measures have taken place. In this Perspective, we address some historical points regarding the advent of the endocrine disruption field and the conceptual changes that endocrine disruption brought about. We also provide our personal recollection of the events triggered by our serendipitous discovery of oestrogenic activity in plastic, a founder event in the field of endocrine disruption. This recollection ends with the CLARITY study as an example of a discordance between 'science for its own sake' and 'regulatory science' and leads us to offer a perspective that could be summarized by the motto attributed to Ludwig Boltzmann: "Nothing is more practical than a good theory".
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.