ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2023
Advancing the science on chemical classes.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic evidence map on the association between exposure to personal care products and fetal growth.Environment international · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a Biology-Informed Chemical Mixture Index for Oxidative Stress and Mortality in NHANES 2005-2010: A Survey-Weighted Quantile G-Computation Approach.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Improving Methodologies for Cumulative Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Noncarcinogenic Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Fenceline Communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania.Environmental health perspectives · 2025Article
- Development of the Navigation Guide Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Environmental Health: Version 1.0.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Chemical mixtures of mercury, PCBs, PFAS, and pesticides in freshwater fish in the US and the risks they pose for fish consumption.Environmental research · 2025Article
- Unlocking the Potential of Clustering and Classification Approaches: Navigating Supervised and Unsupervised Chemical Similarity.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Systematic Approaches for the Encoding of Chemical Groups: A Case Study.Chemical research in toxicology · 2024Article
- A Hazard-Based Framework for Identifying Safer Alternatives to Classes of Chemicals: A Case Study on Phthalates in Consumer Products.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Effects of Behavioral, Clinical, and Policy Interventions in Reducing Human Exposure to Bisphenols and Phthalates: A Scoping Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Science evolves but outdated testing and static risk management in the US delay protection to human health.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Opportunities in Assessing and Regulating Organohalogen Flame Retardants (OFRs) as a Class in Consumer Products.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- The regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to minimize their impact on health.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.