ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2025
Amphibian studies to investigate the endocrine-disrupting properties of chemicals through the thyroid modality: a comparison of their statistical power.
Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The assessment for potential thyroid-mediated endocrine disruption in amphibians: Clarification on the use of new methods and on the interpretation of changes in thyroid histology.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance phenmedipham.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amphibians are the current model species for investigating the endocrine-disrupting (ED) properties through the thyroid modality in non-mammalian species. A recurrent question in the European Union (EU) regulatory endocrine assessment of pesticide active substances (2018/605) is whether the positive results from an in vivo screening test, that is, Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay (AMA), can be considered sufficient to conclude on the ED properties of a pesticide active substance or whether the larval amphibian growth and developmental assay (LAGDA) is a necessary step to further clarify the concerns identified in the AMA. Another one is the consideration of the extended AMA (EAMA). To further clarify some of the uncertainties around the use of the LAGDA and to help further consideration of the EAMA in a regulatory context, the statistical power of the three test designs was tested for all the parameters entailed to be measured in the respective study design (except for thyroid histopathology) by using data from real experimental studies. Our findings showed that the statistical power of the EAMA is in line with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standardized tests, that is, AMA, LAGDA. Our results also confirmed that the LAGDA is more powerful to detect effects on relevant parameters, that is, time to reach metamorphosis, compared to other in vivo tests. However, the difference in power was small, questioning its contribution to an overall weight of evidence already supporting the identification of a substance as an ED. These findings should be considered only in the context of hazard-based endocrine assessment of active substances (i.e., EU regulatory ED assessment of pesticide active substances, 2018/65), while they may not be fully applicable for a risk assessment-based approach.
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.