ArticleToxicology reports2026
Acute liver injury linked to an adulterated weight-loss product: Integrated clinical, chemical, and toxicological evidence supporting a highly probable causality as assessed by updated RUCAM (2016).
Article in Toxicology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Acute liver injury associated with unregulated products marketed as dietary supplements is an emerging toxicological and public health concern, particularly due to the increasing prevalence of chemically adulterated formulations. Case presentation: A case of severe acute hepatocellular injury with marked aminotransferase elevation following short-term exposure to an Internet-purchased weight loss product is described. Clinical evaluation excluded alternative etiologies, including viral, autoimmune, and structural causes of liver injury. Methods: Causality was prospectively assessed using the updated RUCAM (2016). Chemical characterization was performed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), complemented by in vitro toxicity testing ( Results: The Updated RUCAM assessment yielded a score indicating a highly probable causal relationship between product exposure and liver injury. Analytical profiling has identified multiple undeclared synthetic pharmacologically active substances at supratherapeutic concentrations, confirming product adulteration. The experimental assays demonstrated marked biological activity, supporting the toxicological relevance of these findings. Conclusions: This case highlights the significant hepatotoxic risk associated with chemically adulterated and unregulated weight-loss products. The integration of clinical assessment, advanced analytical chemistry, and experimental toxicology provides a robust translational framework for causal inference in suspected product-related liver injury, and underscores the need for strengthened pharmacovigilance systems targeting illicit or unregulated products.
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.