Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35924078›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2022

Engi Abdelhady Algharably, Emma Di Consiglio, Emanuela Testai, Francesca Pistollato, Hans Mielke, Ursula Gundert-Remy

Abstract 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, 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. 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

6 authors.

Engi Abdelhady AlgharablyCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Berlin, Germany.
Emma Di ConsiglioMechanisms, Biomarkers and Models Unit, Environment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Emanuela TestaiMechanisms, Biomarkers and Models Unit, Environment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Francesca PistollatoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Center (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Hans MielkeFederal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Ursula Gundert-RemyCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modeling has been increasingly used since the beginning of the 21st century to support dose selection to be used in preclinical and clinical safety studies in the pharmaceutical sector. For chemical safety assessment, the use of PBK has also found interest, however, to a smaller extent, although an internationally agreed document was published already in 2010 (IPCS/WHO), but at that time, PBK modeling was based mostly on

Indexed as

new approach methodologies (NAMs)reverse dosimetryrisk assessmenttoxicodynamicstoxicokinetics

Identifiers

PMID35924078
PMCPMC9340473

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.