Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35159786›Full record

ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Collection of Controlled Nanosafety Data-The CoCoN-Database, a Tool to Assess Nanomaterial Hazard.

Harald F Krug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

1 author.

Harald F KrugNanoCASE GmbH, St. Gallerstr. 58, CH-9032 Engelburg, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9318-095X

Funding

Federal Office of Public Health 16.006894 / 444.0000Verband der Chemischen Industrie 20170008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hazard assessment is the first step in nanomaterial risk assessment. The overall number of studies on the biological effects of nanomaterials or innovative materials is steadily increasing and is above 40,000. Several databases have been established to make the amount of data manageable, but these are often highly specialized or can be used only by experts. This paper describes a new database which uses an already existing data collection of about 35,000 publications. The collection from the first phase between the years 2000 and 2013 contains about 11,000 articles and this number has been reduced by specific selection criteria. The resulting publications have been evaluated for their quality regarding the toxicological content and the experimental data have been extracted. In addition to material properties, the most important value to be extracted is the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for in vivo and the no-observed-effect-concentration (NOEC) for in vitro studies. The correlation of the NOAEL/NOEC values with the nanomaterial properties and the investigated endpoints has been tested in projects such as the OECD-AOP project, where the available data for inflammatory responses have been analysed. In addition, special attention was paid to titanium dioxide particles and this example is used to show with searches for in vitro and in vivo experiments on possible lung toxicity what a typical result of a database query can look like. In this review, an emerging database is described that contains valuable information for nanomaterial hazard estimation and should aid in the progress of nanosafety research.

Indexed as

databasehazard assessmentlung toxicitynanomaterialsstudy qualitytitanium dioxide

Identifiers

PMID35159786
PMCPMC8839907

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.