Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34822706›Full record

ArticleToxics2021

Update and Evaluation of a High-Throughput In Vitro Mass Balance Distribution Model: IV-MBM EQP v2.0.

James M Armitage, Alessandro Sangion, Rohan Parmar, Alexandra B Looky, Jon A Arnot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Extrapolation steps in quantitativeCurrent research in toxicology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

James M ArmitageAES Armitage Environmental Sciences, Inc., Ottawa, ON K1L 8C3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8526-0324
Alessandro SangionARC Arnot Research and Consulting, Inc., Toronto, ON M4M 1W4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4602-5425
Rohan ParmarARC Arnot Research and Consulting, Inc., Toronto, ON M4M 1W4, Canada.
Alexandra B LookyARC Arnot Research and Consulting, Inc., Toronto, ON M4M 1W4, Canada.
Jon A ArnotARC Arnot Research and Consulting, Inc., Toronto, ON M4M 1W4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4295-4270

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study demonstrates the utility of an updated mass balance model for predicting the distribution of organic chemicals in in vitro test systems (IV-MBM EQP v2.0) and evaluates its performance with empirical data. The IV-MBM EQP v2.0 tool was parameterized and applied to four independent data sets with measured ratios of bulk medium or freely-dissolved to initial nominal concentrations (e.g., C24/C0 where C24 is the measured concentration after 24 h of exposure and C0 is the initial nominal concentration). Model performance varied depending on the data set, chemical properties (e.g., "volatiles" vs. "non-volatiles", neutral vs. ionizable organics), and model assumptions but overall is deemed acceptable. For example, the r

Indexed as

bioactivity/toxicitydistributionin vitroQ-IVIVE

Identifiers

PMID34822706
PMCPMC8625852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.