Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41012390›Full record

ReviewToxics2025

The Role of

Svetlana G Frolova, Aleksey A Vatlin, Iunona Pospelova, Nikita A Mitkin, Gulnara A Kulieva, Vsevolod V Pavshintsev

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Toxics, 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.

Svetlana G FrolovaDepartment of Biosciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9178-4792
Aleksey A VatlinInstitute of Environmental Engineering, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, 117198 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-6499-3908
Iunona PospelovaQuantori, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Nikita A MitkinInstitute of Environmental Engineering, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, 117198 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-1014-9250
Gulnara A KulievaInstitute of Environmental Engineering, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, 117198 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0076-5762
Vsevolod V PavshintsevInstitute of Environmental Engineering, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, 117198 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-0586-1574

Funding

RUDN University Scientific Projects Grant System 202789-2-000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Freshwater pollution is a global issue that can impact aquatic organisms in multiple ways. One of the many detrimental consequences of freshwater pollution is the disruption of the intestinal microbiome in aquatic animals. This review addresses the impact of various chemical entities like pesticides, heavy metals, antibiotics, dyes, and microplastic. Gut microbiota serves as a crucial regulator of metabolic processes across all organisms. Since numerous metabolic pathways are coordinated by microbial communities, even minor disruptions can lead to consequences ranging from mild to severe. The widespread use of chemicals in modern life has made them a primary focus of current gut microbiota research. Zebrafish (

Indexed as

antibioticsheavy metalsmicrobiomemicroplasticpesticidespollutantszebrafish

Identifiers

PMID41012390
PMCPMC12473707

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.