ReviewParticle and fibre toxicology2022
Digital research data: from analysis of existing standards to a scientific foundation for a modular metadata schema in nanosafety.
Review in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms and determinants of mRNALipid Nanoparticle biodistribution: From pharmacokinetics to clinical translation.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Oral Toxicity Study of Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles on Fertility and Early Embryonic Development in Mice.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Article
- Potential impacts of nanoparticles integration on micropropagation efficiency: current achievements and prospects.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Techniques and Instruments for Assessing and Reducing Risk of Exposure to Nanomaterials in Construction, Focusing on Fire-Resistant Insulation Panels Containing Nanoclay.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.Nature protocols · 2024Review
- Knowledge and Instance Mapping: architecture for premeditated interoperability of disparate data for materials.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Metadata recommendations for light logging and dosimetry datasets.BMC digital health · 2024Article
- Defining Quality Criteria for Nanoplastic Hazard Evaluation: The Case of Polystyrene Nanoplastics and Aquatic InvertebrateNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- SciRAPnano: a pragmatic and harmonized approach for quality evaluation ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2023Article
- How Structured Metadata Acquisition Contributes to the Reproducibility of Nanosafety Studies: Evaluation by a Round-Robin Test.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the safety of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is an interdisciplinary and complex process producing huge amounts of information and data. To make such data and metadata reusable for researchers, manufacturers, and regulatory authorities, there is an urgent need to record and provide this information in a structured, harmonized, and digitized way.
resultsThis study aimed to identify appropriate description standards and quality criteria for the special use in nanosafety. There are many existing standards and guidelines designed for collecting data and metadata, ranging from regulatory guidelines to specific databases. Most of them are incomplete or not specifically designed for ENM research. However, by merging the content of several existing standards and guidelines, a basic catalogue of descriptive information and quality criteria was generated. In an iterative process, our interdisciplinary team identified deficits and added missing information into a comprehensive schema. Subsequently, this overview was externally evaluated by a panel of experts during a workshop. This whole process resulted in a minimum information table (MIT), specifying necessary minimum information to be provided along with experimental results on effects of ENMs in the biological context in a flexible and modular manner. The MIT is divided into six modules: general information, material information, biological model information, exposure information, endpoint read out information and analysis and statistics. These modules are further partitioned into module subdivisions serving to include more detailed information. A comparison with existing ontologies, which also aim to electronically collect data and metadata on nanosafety studies, showed that the newly developed MIT exhibits a higher level of detail compared to those existing schemas, making it more usable to prevent gaps in the communication of information.
conclusionImplementing the requirements of the MIT into e.g., electronic lab notebooks (ELNs) would make the collection of all necessary data and metadata a daily routine and thereby would improve the reproducibility and reusability of experiments. Furthermore, this approach is particularly beneficial regarding the rapidly expanding developments and applications of novel non-animal alternative testing methods.
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.