ArticleToxics2024
Responses of an
Article in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- NAMs for closing knowledge gaps in assessment of respiratory uptake - a PARC project.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, a global increase in allergy incidence following chemical exposure has been observed. While the process of skin sensitization is well characterized through the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, the immunological mechanisms underlying respiratory sensitization remain less well understood. Respiratory sensitizers are classified as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under the European Union (EU) regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH), emphasizing the importance of evaluating respiratory tract sensitization as a critical hazard. However, the existing new approach methodologies (NAMs) for the identification of skin sensitizers lack the capacity to differentiate between skin and respiratory sensitizers. Thus, it is imperative to develop physiologically relevant test systems specifically tailored to assess respiratory sensitizers. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ALIsens
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.