ReviewArchives of toxicology2026
Mechanistic pathways of cosmetic ingredient toxicity: a critical review of in vitro and in vivo evidence.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every day, billions of people apply cosmetic products containing dozens of bioactive compounds whose combined toxicological profile has never been formally evaluated. Human biomonitoring confirms systemic deposition of these compounds in blood, adipose tissue, placenta, and breast milk worldwide. This scoping review, following PRISMA-ScR, synthesizes in vitro and in vivo mechanistic toxicology evidence for six major cosmetic ingredient categories-preservatives, UV filters, engineered nanoparticles, fragrances, surfactants, and colorants-and maps findings onto established adverse outcome pathways (AOPs). Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science identified 1231 records, of which 48 studies met eligibility criteria. Critical appraisal exposes three structural failures: most studies test at concentrations orders of magnitude above realistic dermal exposures; nearly all assess single ingredients in isolation; and the field over-relies on targeted assays over untargeted omics. The evidence nonetheless reveals mechanistic convergence: parabens, benzophenones, UV filters, and surfactants activate overlapping estrogen receptor, oxidative stress, and innate immune pathways, with biological plausibility supported by cohort data linking benzophenone-3 to lower testosterone and altered pubertal timing, and the preservatives chloromethylisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone to Th2-skewed atopic responses. AOP mapping shows uneven regulatory readiness: skin sensitization (AOP40) is the most mature pathway; estrogen and androgen receptor activity (AOP29, AOP19) and thyroid disruption (AOP54) are existing anchors needing refinement; and three candidate AOPs are proposed. We propose a four-tier, largely non-animal integrated testing strategy compatible with EU Regulation 1223/2009 and the US Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, alongside six priority research gaps to guide future regulatory risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919945What 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.