Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40137878›Full record

ReviewToxins2025

Past, Current and Future Techniques for Monitoring Paralytic Shellfish Toxins in Bivalve Molluscs.

Sarah C Finch, D Tim Harwood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Sarah C FinchAgResearch Ltd., Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-5843
D Tim HarwoodCawthron Institute, Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7222-5979

Funding

New Zealand Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) CAWX1801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paralytic shellfish poisoning is a threat to human health caused by the consumption of shellfish contaminated with toxins of the saxitoxin class. Human health is protected by the setting of regulatory limits and the analysis of shellfish prior to sale. Both robust toxicity data, generated from experiments fitting into the ethical 3R framework, and appropriate analysis methods are required to ensure the success of this approach. A literature review of in vivo animal bioassays and in vitro and analytical methods showed that in vitro methods are the best option to screen shellfish for non-regulatory purposes. However, since neither the receptor nor antibody binding of paralytic shellfish toxin analogues correlate with toxicity, these assays cannot accurately quantify toxicity in shellfish nor be used to calculate toxicity equivalence factors. Fully replacing animals in testing is rightfully the ultimate goal, but this cannot be at a cost to human health. More modern technology, such as organ-on-a-chip, represent an exciting development, but animal bioassays cannot currently be replaced in the determination of toxicity. Analytical methods that employ toxicity equivalence factors calculated using oral animal toxicity data result in an accurate assessment of the food safety risk posed by paralytic shellfish toxin contamination in bivalve molluscs.

Indexed as

BivalviaMarine ToxinsShellfishShellfish PoisoningAnimalsBiological AssayFood ContaminationHumansSaxitoxinMarine ToxinsSaxitoxin3RsELISAmouse bioassaynon-animal methodsorgan-on-a-chipPSTreceptor binding assaytoxicity equivalence factor

Identifiers

PMID40137878
PMCPMC11945588

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.