ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
FAIRification of nanosafety data to improve applicability of (Q)SAR approaches: A case study on
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a New Approach Methodology Framework to Assess Biological Responses to Nanoplastics: Insights from Polystyrene and Biodegradable Particles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery Systems: Current Advances and Future Directions.Current drug targets · 2026Review
- Optimizing the implementation of safe and sustainable by design to better enable sustainable innovation.iScience · 2025Review
- Development, Use, and Validation of (Q)SARs for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity: Experiences from Italian National Institute of Health Activities.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.Nature protocols · 2024Review
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
(Quantitative) structure-activity relationship ([Q]SAR) methodologies are widely applied to predict the (eco)toxicological effects of chemicals, and their use is envisaged in different regulatory frameworks for filling data gaps of untested substances. However, their application to the risk assessment of nanomaterials is still limited, also due to the scarcity of large and curated experimental datasets. Despite a great amount of nanosafety data having been produced over the last decade in international collaborative initiatives, their interpretation, integration and reuse has been hampered by several obstacles, such as poorly described (meta)data, non-standard terminology, lack of harmonized reporting formats and criteria. Recently, the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles have been established to guide the scientific community in good data management and stewardship. The EU H2020 Gov4Nano project, together with other international projects and initiatives, is addressing the challenge of improving nanosafety data FAIRness, for maximizing their availability, understanding, exchange and ultimately their reuse. These efforts are largely supported by the creation of a common Nanosafety Data Interface, which connects a row of project-specific databases applying the eNanoMapper data model. A wide variety of experimental data relating to characterization and effects of nanomaterials are stored in the database; however, the methods, protocols and parameters driving their generation are not fully mature. This article reports the progress of an ongoing case study in the Gov4nano project on the reuse of
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.