ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2023
Expanding adverse outcome pathways towards one health models for nanosafety.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- New approach methodologies for next-generation risk assessment of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products.Nano convergence · 2026Review
- Review on Predictive Models and Integration Strategies for Holistic Impact Assessment of Chemicals and Materials.Environmental science & technology · 2026Review
- The FAIR AOP roadmap for 2025: Advancing findability, accessibility, interoperability, and re-usability of adverse outcome pathways.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Going digital to boost safe and sustainable materials innovation markets. The digital safe-and-sustainability-by-design innovation approach of the PINK project.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Editorial: Five grand challenges in toxicology.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ever-growing production of nano-enabled products has generated the need for dedicated risk assessment strategies that ensure safety for humans and the environment. Transdisciplinary approaches are needed to support the development of new technologies while respecting environmental limits, as also highlighted by the EU Green Deal Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and its safe and sustainable by design (SSbD) framework. The One Health concept offers a holistic multiscale approach for the assessment of nanosafety. However, toxicology is not yet capable of explaining the interaction between chemicals and biological systems at the multiscale level and in the context of the One Health framework. Furthermore, there is a disconnect between chemical safety assessment, epidemiology, and other fields of biology that, if unified, would enable the adoption of the One Health model. The development of mechanistic toxicology and the generation of omics data has provided important biological knowledge of the response of individual biological systems to nanomaterials (NMs). On the other hand, epigenetic data have the potential to inform on interspecies mechanisms of adaptation. These data types, however, need to be linked to concepts that support their intuitive interpretation. Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) represent an evolving framework to anchor existing knowledge to chemical risk assessment. In this perspective, we discuss the possibility of integrating multi-level toxicogenomics data, including toxicoepigenetic insights, into the AOP framework. We anticipate that this new direction of toxicogenomics can support the development of One Health models applicable to groups of chemicals and to multiple species in the tree of life.
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.