Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35910543›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2022

"In Litero" Screening: Retrospective Evaluation of Clinical Evidence to Establish a Reference List of Human Chemical Respiratory Sensitizers.

Jessica Ponder, Ramya Rajagopal, Madhuri Singal, Nancy Baker, Grace Patlewicz, Erwin Roggen, Stella Cochrane, Kristie Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Formaldehyde and asthma: a plausibility?Archives of toxicology · 2025
    Review
  4. Responses of anToxics · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jessica PonderPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., DC, United States.
Ramya RajagopalSEAC, Unilever, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Madhuri SingalAeroTox Consulting Services, LLC, Montvale, NJ, United States.
Nancy BakerLeidos Contractor to the US EPA, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, United States.
Grace PatlewiczUS EPA, Research Triangle Park, Washington, NC, United States.
Erwin RoggenDanish 3R-Center, Glostrup, Denmark.
Stella CochraneSEAC, Unilever, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Kristie SullivanPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., DC, United States.
Environmental Protection Agency · USPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine · USUnilever (United Kingdom) · GBGlostrup Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite decades of investigation, test methods to identify respiratory sensitizers remain an unmet regulatory need. In order to support the evaluation of New Approach Methodologies in development, we sought to establish a reference set of low molecular weight respiratory sensitizers based on case reports of occupational asthma. In this context, we have developed an "in litero" approach to identify cases of low molecular weight chemical exposures leading to respiratory sensitization in clinical literature. We utilized the EPA-developed Abstract Sifter literature review tool to maximize the retrieval of publications relevant to respiratory effects in humans for each chemical in a list of chemicals suspected of inducing respiratory sensitization. The literature retrieved for each of these candidate chemicals was sifted to identify relevant case reports and studies, and then evaluated by applying defined selection criteria. Clinical diagnostic criteria were defined around exposure history, respiratory effects, and specific immune response to conclusively demonstrate occupational asthma as a result of sensitization, rather than irritation. This approach successfully identified 28 chemicals that can be considered as human respiratory sensitizers and used to evaluate the performance of NAMs as part of a weight of evidence approach to identify novel respiratory sensitizers. Further, these results have immediate implications for the development and refinement of predictive tools to distinguish between skin and respiratory sensitizers. A comparison of the protein binding mechanisms of our identified "in litero" clinical respiratory sensitizers shows that acylation is a prevalent protein binding mechanism, in contrast to Michael addition and Schiff base formation common to skin sensitizers. Overall, this approach provides an exemplary method to evaluate and apply human data as part of the weight of evidence when establishing reference chemical lists.

Indexed as

adverse outcome pathwayallergic asthmachemical allergensclinical reference listnew approach methodologiesoccupational asthmarespiratory sensitisationrespiratory sensitization

Identifiers

PMID35910543
PMCPMC9335368
OpenAlexW4285590153

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.