Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36818642›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2023

Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome.

EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), Antonio F Hernandez-Jerez, Paulien Adriaanse, Annette Aldrich, Philippe Berny, Tamara Coja, Sabine Duquesne, Andreas Focks, Maurice Millet, Olavi Pelkonen and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  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

27 authors.

EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR)
Antonio F Hernandez-Jerez
Paulien Adriaanse
Annette Aldrich
Philippe Berny
Tamara Coja
Sabine Duquesne
Andreas Focks
Maurice Millet
Olavi Pelkonen
Silvia Pieper
Aaldrik Tiktak
Christopher J Topping
Anneli Widenfalk
Martin Wilks
Gerrit Wolterink
Karine Angeli
Camilla Recordati
Majorie Van Durseen
Elisa Aiassa
Anna Lanzoni
Alfonso Lostia
Laura Martino
Irene Pilar Munoz Guajardo
Martina Panzarea
Andrea Terron
Marina Marinovich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA-ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.

Indexed as

adverse outcome pathway (AOP)EFSA‐ECHA GuidanceEndocrine disruptionuterine adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID36818642
PMCPMC9926893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.