ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2026
Generic formulations: availability and applicability for exposure assessment.
Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneric formulations (GFs), representations of the composition of consumer and industrial products based upon function rather than specific substances, can be useful tools for exposure and risk assessors. They provide a way to share the information needed for screening assessments of product safety without disclosing specific product formulations. GFs provide a structure for organizing the product/process type and associated qualitative and quantitative chemical ingredient information.
objectiveThis perspective seeks to explain and highlight how GFs can be useful in exposure and risk evaluation, provides examples of GF information sources, and offers suggestions for further development of GFs. The primary emphasis here is on available information for industrial products, as this space is historically data-poor with respect to publicly available GF information.
methodsPublicly accessible GF references were located and mapped to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) harmonized use categories. Authors' personal knowledge of sources of GFs played a key role because a great deal of GF-related information is embedded within spreadsheets or documents posted on the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) website or websites of commercial enterprises, and these sources may not be readily identified using typical internet or literature search strategies.
resultsIndustrial GF information was found for 13 of 20 OECD use categories, but only for 20 of 91 OECD product-subcategory combinations. Limitations in findability and disparity in availability across sources support the value of developing common, consistent practices and platforms across stakeholder communities for sharing GFs and other exposure-relevant information. SIGNIFICANCE: This paper highlights available data, makes the case for systematic development and public availability of GF data, and explains the benefits of having this information available for various user sectors.
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.