Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9539010›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives1998

In vitro techniques for the assessment of neurotoxicity.

G J Harry, M Billingsley, A Bruinink, I L Campbell, W Classen, D C Dorman, C Galli, D Ray, R A Smith, H A Tilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Design and demonstration of an intracortical probe technology with tunable modulus.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

G J HarryNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA. harry@niehs.nih.gov
M Billingsley
A Bruinink
I L Campbell
W Classen
D C Dorman
C Galli
D Ray
R A Smith
H A Tilson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk assessment is a process often divided into the following steps: a) hazard identification, b) dose-response assessment, c) exposure assessment, and d) risk characterization. Regulatory toxicity studies usually are aimed at providing data for the first two steps. Human case reports, environmental research, and in vitro studies may also be used to identify or to further characterize a toxic hazard. In this report the strengths and limitations of in vitro techniques are discussed in light of their usefulness to identify neurotoxic hazards, as well as for the subsequent dose-response assessment. Because of the complexity of the nervous system, multiple functions of individual cells, and our limited knowledge of biochemical processes involved in neurotoxicity, it is not known how well any in vitro system would recapitulate the in vivo system. Thus, it would be difficult to design an in vitro test battery to replace in vivo test systems. In vitro systems are well suited to the study of biological processes in a more isolated context and have been most successfully used to elucidate mechanisms of toxicity, identify target cells of neurotoxicity, and delineate the development and intricate cellular changes induced by neurotoxicants. Both biochemical and morphological end points can be used, but many of the end points used can be altered by pharmacological actions as well as toxicity. Therefore, for many of these end points it is difficult or impossible to set a criterion that allows one to differentiate between a pharmacological and a neurotoxic effect. For the process of risk assessment such a discrimination is central. Therefore, end points used to determine potential neurotoxicity of a compound have to be carefully selected and evaluated with respect to their potential to discriminate between an adverse neurotoxic effect and a pharmacologic effect. It is obvious that for in vitro neurotoxicity studies the primary end points that can be used are those affected through specific mechanisms of neurotoxicity. For example, in vitro systems may be useful for certain structurally defined compounds and mechanisms of toxicity, such as organophosphorus compounds and delayed neuropathy, for which target cells and the biochemical processes involved in the neurotoxicity are well known. For other compounds and the different types of neurotoxicity, a mechanism of toxicity needs to be identified first. Once identified, by either in vivo or in vitro methods, a system can be developed to detect and to evaluate predictive ability for the type of in vivo neurotoxicity produced. Therefore, in vitro tests have their greatest potential in providing information on basic mechanistic processes in order to refine specific experimental questions to be addressed in the whole animal.

Indexed as

AnimalsCalciumCells, CulturedHomeostasisHumansNervous SystemSignal TransductionToxicologyCalcium

Identifiers

PMID9539010
PMCPMC1533280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.