Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39960454›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational health2025

Carcinogenicity assessment: "modern toxicology" considerations from experience in the evaluation of a carbon nanotube.

Jun Kanno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jun KannoDivision of Cellular and Molecular Toxicology, Center for Biological Safety and Research, National Institute of Health Sciences, 3-25-26, Tonomachi, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 210-9501, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5191-621X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The novel properties and functions of nanomaterials have naturally alerted toxicologists to the fact that such materials may also have novel effects on the human body and other living organisms. In particular, materials with high stability or biopersistency have been shown to have a tendency to accumulate in the body, leading to chronic toxicity including carcinogenicity. However, in the early stages of toxicity research, the information is often limited to the effects of short-term exposure studies, and findings on chronic effects are very much delayed. In this context, it was exceptional that studies on multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) have started with the verification of their potential to induce mesothelioma. This toxicological endpoint was expected on the basis of existing knowledge of asbestos and asbestos-like fiber particles. This movement has led to the achievement of the original mission of "modern toxicology," which is "to achieve a win-win situation where both industrial promotion and safety assurance are ensured by communicating and sharing toxicity information to developers and consumers at a stage before mass production and consumption begins, that is, before massive exposure of the general public begins." Inaccurate toxicity assessments of asbestos in the 1980s and 1990s allowed its spread to our living environment, which is difficult to decontaminate, and the damage continues to this day. However, the case described here could be an example of realizing the proposition that "nanomaterials, the flagship of high technology, must not repeat the same mistakes."

Indexed as

CarcinogensNanotubes, CarbonAnimalsAsbestosCarcinogenicity TestsHumansMesotheliomaOccupational ExposureRisk AssessmentAsbestosCarcinogensNanotubes, Carbonasbestoscarcinogenesismodern toxicologyMWCNTnanomaterialpoison science

Identifiers

PMID39960454
PMCPMC12057693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.