Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980066›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2025

Tao Ren, Libo Yan, Daogang Wang, Ning Xu, Weiming Zhang, Mengzhe Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Tao Ren *The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Libo Yan *Hubei University of Science and Technology, Xianning, China.
Daogang WangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning, China.
Ning XuThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Weiming ZhangWuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Mengzhe YangBeijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanoplastics (NPs) and microplastics (MPs) are emerging environmental pollutants that have raised concerns due to their potential impacts on human health. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) have been widely used as a model organism to study the toxicity of NPs and MPs and to evaluate the effects of these pollutants on human health. This review summarizes recent studies on the toxicities and potential effects of NPs and MPs in zebrafish and discusses how findings from this model can help predict their impact on human health. Additionally, the mechanisms by which NPs and MPs affect biological processes, such as growth, development, behavior, immune function, reproduction, and the nervous system, in zebrafish are further illustrated. Taken together, zebrafish serve as a valuable model for predicting the potential effects of NPs and MPs on human health and highlight the growing concern surrounding these environmental pollutants.

Indexed as

Environmental PollutantsMicroplasticsNanoparticlesPlasticsWater Pollutants, ChemicalZebrafishAnimalsHumansModels, AnimalEnvironmental PollutantsMicroplasticsPlasticsWater Pollutants, ChemicalBiotoxicityMicroplasticNanoplasticPollutionZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID40980066
PMCPMC12445291

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.