Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38319881›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2024

Expanded Systematic Evidence Map for Hundreds of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Comprehensive PFAS Human Health Dashboard.

Avanti V Shirke, Elizabeth G Radke, Cynthia Lin, Robyn Blain, Nicole Vetter, Courtney Lemeris, Pamela Hartman, Heidi Hubbard, Michelle Angrish, Xabier Arzuaga and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

24 authors.

Avanti V ShirkeCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5825-2505
Elizabeth G RadkeCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Cynthia LinICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Robyn BlainICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Nicole VetterICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Courtney LemerisICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Pamela HartmanICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Heidi HubbardICF International, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Michelle AngrishCPAD, US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Xabier ArzuagaCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Johanna CongletonCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Allen DavisCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Laura V DishawCPAD, US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Ryan JonesCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Richard JudsonCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Phillip KaiserCPAD, US EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Andrew KraftCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Lucina LizarragaCPAD, US EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Pamela D NoyesCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA.
Grace PatlewiczCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Michele TaylorCPAD, US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Antony J WilliamsCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Kristina A ThayerCPAD, US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Laura M CarlsonCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3819-2952

Funding

EPA 68HERC19D0003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) encompass a class of chemically and structurally diverse compounds that are extensively used in industry and detected in the environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap describes national research plans to address the challenge of PFAS.

objectivesSystematic Evidence Map (SEM) methods were used to survey and summarize available epidemiological and mammalian bioassay evidence that could inform human health hazard identification for a set of 345 PFAS that were identified by the US EPA's Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for

methodsSEM methods were used to search, screen, and inventory mammalian bioassay and epidemiological literature from peer-reviewed and gray literature sources using manual review and machine-learning software. For each included study, study design details and health end points examined were summarized in interactive web-based literature inventories. Some included studies also underwent study evaluation and detailed extraction of health end point data. All underlying data is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata.

resultsMore than 13,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 121 mammalian bioassay and 111 epidemiological studies that met screening criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 12 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Mammalian bioassay evidence (available for 30 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, whole-body, nervous, and hepatic systems. Overall, 41 PFAS had evidence across mammalian bioassay and epidemiology data streams (roughly 11% of searched chemicals). DISCUSSION: No epidemiological and/or mammalian bioassay evidence were identified for most of the PFAS included in our search. Results from this SEM, our 2022 SEM on

Indexed as

Dashboard SystemsFluorocarbonsAnimalsHumansMammalsReproductionRisk AssessmentUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyFluorocarbons

Identifiers

PMID38319881
PMCPMC10846678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.