Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945939›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2022

Research progress in toxicological effects and mechanism of aflatoxin B

Congcong Li, Xiangdong Liu, Jiao Wu, Xiangbo Ji, Qiuliang Xu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Research status of several programmed cell death in the toxic effect of AFBApoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2026
    Review
  8. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Role of theToxins · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Congcong LiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Xiangdong LiuHuazhong Agricultural University, Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Lab of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Jiao WuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Xiangbo JiHenan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Henan Key Laboratory of Unconventional Feed Resources Innovative Utilization, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Qiuliang XuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungal contamination of animal feed can severely affect the health of farm animals, and result in considerable economic losses. Certain filamentous fungi or molds produce toxic secondary metabolites known as mycotoxins, of which aflatoxins (AFTs) are considered the most critical dietary risk factor for both humans and animals. AFTs are ubiquitous in the environment, soil, and food crops, and aflatoxin B

Indexed as

AflatoxinsMycotoxinsAflatoxin B1AnimalsFungiHumansOxidative StressAflatoxin B1AflatoxinsMycotoxinsAflatoxin B1MechanismsMycotoxinsRegulationToxicities

Identifiers

PMID35945939
PMCPMC9357370

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.