Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3530737›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives1986

Chemical carcinogens: a review of the science and its associated principles. U.S. Interagency Staff Group on Carcinogens.

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 1986. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

0 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to articulate a view of chemical carcinogenesis that scientists generally hold in common today and to draw upon this understanding to compose guiding principles that can be used as a bases for the efforts of the regulatory agencies to establish guidelines for assessing carcinogenic risk to meet the specific requirements of the legislative acts they are charged to implement, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office, the White House drew on the expertise of a number of regulatory agencies to elucidate present scientific views in critical areas of the major disciplines important to the process of risk assessment. The document is composed of two major sections, Principles and the State-of-the-Science. The latter consists of subsections on the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, short-term and long-term testing, and epidemiology, which are important components in the risk assessment step of hazard identification. These subsections are followed by one on exposure assessment, and a final section which includes analyses of dose-response (hazard) assessment and risk characterization. The principles are derived from considerations in each of the subsections. Because of present gaps in understanding, the principles contain judgmental (science policy) decisions on major unresolved issues as well as statements of what is generally accepted as fact. These judgments are basically assumptions which are responsible for much of the uncertainty in the process of risk assessment. There was an attempt to clearly distinguish policy and fact. The subsections of the State-of-the-Science portion provide the underlying support to the principles articulated, and to read the "Principles" section without a full appreciation of the State-of-the-Science section is to invite oversimplification and misinterpretation. Finally, suggestions are made for future research efforts which will improve the process of risk assessment.

Indexed as

CarcinogensAnimalsDNAEnvironmental ExposureEpidemiologic MethodsHumansLegislation as TopicMutagenicity TestsMutagensNeoplasmsRiskUnited StatesCarcinogensDNAMutagens

Identifiers

PMID3530737
PMCPMC1474412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.