Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635752›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2023

Advancing the science on chemical classes.

Maricel V Maffini, Swati D G Rayasam, Daniel A Axelrad, Linda S Birnbaum, Courtney Cooper, Shari Franjevic, Patrick M MacRoy, Keeve E Nachman, Heather B Patisaul, Kathryn M Rodgers and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

14 authors.

Maricel V MaffiniIndependent Consultant, Frederick, MD, USA. drmvma@gmail.com.
Swati D G RayasamDepartment of Obstetrics, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Daniel A AxelradIndependent Consultant, Frederick, MD, USA.
Linda S BirnbaumScientist Emeritus and Former Director, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Courtney CooperDepartment of Obstetrics, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Shari FranjevicClean Production Action, Somerville, MA, USA.
Patrick M MacRoyDefend Our Health, Portland, ME, USA.
Keeve E NachmanDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Heather B PatisaulDepartment of Biological Sciences, Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Kathryn M RodgersSilent Spring Institute, Newton, MA, USA.
Mark S RossiClean Production Action, Somerville, MA, USA.
Ted SchettlerScience and Environmental Health Network, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Gina M SolomonUniversity of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Tracey J WoodruffDepartment of Obstetrics, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.

Funding

UCSF Environmental Research and Translation for Health Center (EaRTH Center)P30ES030284 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JENNIFER C FUNG, Tracey J. Woodruff · 2020 to 2026
$11.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES030284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHazard identification, risk assessment, regulatory, and policy activity are usually conducted on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Grouping chemicals into categories or classes is an underutilized approach that could make risk assessment and management of chemicals more efficient for regulators. OBJECTIVE AND

methodsWhile there are some available methods and regulatory frameworks that include the grouping of chemicals (e.g.,same molecular mechanism or similar chemical structure) there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of these different approaches nor a recommended course of action to better consider chemical classes in decision-making. This manuscript: 1) reviews current national and international approaches to grouping; 2) describes how groups could be defined based on the decision context (e.g., hazard/risk assessment, restrictions, prioritization, product development) and scientific considerations (e.g., intrinsic physical-chemical properties); 3) discusses advantages of developing a decision tree approach for grouping; 4) uses ortho-phthalates as a case study to identify and organize frameworks that could be used across agencies; and 5) discusses opportunities to advance the class concept within various regulatory decision-making scenarios.

resultsStructural similarity was the most common grouping approach for risk assessment among regulatory agencies (national and state level) and non-regulatory organizations, albeit with some variations in its definition. Toxicity to the same target organ or to the same biological function was also used in a few cases. The phthalates case study showed that a decision tree approach for grouping should include questions about uses regulated by other agencies to encourage more efficient, coherent, and protective chemical risk management. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionOur evaluation of how classes of chemicals are defined and used identified commonalities and differences based on regulatory frameworks, risk assessments, and business strategies. We also identified that using a class-based approach could result in a more efficient process to reduce exposures to multiple hazardous chemicals and, ultimately, reduce health risks. We concluded that, in the absence of a prescribed method, a decision tree approach could facilitate the selection of chemicals belonging to a pre-defined class (e.g., chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activity; organohalogen flame retardants [OFR]) based on the decision-making context (e.g., regulatory risk management).

Indexed as

Hazardous SubstancesHumansRisk AssessmentHazardous SubstancesChemical classChemical groupingDecision-makingOrtho-phthalatesRegulationRisk assessmentToxic chemicals

Identifiers

PMID36635752
PMCPMC9835214

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.