Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33784186›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2021

Using the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens to Develop Research on Chemical Mixtures and Cancer.

Cynthia V Rider, Cliona M McHale, Thomas F Webster, Leroy Lowe, William H Goodson, Michele A La Merrill, Glenn Rice, Lauren Zeise, Luoping Zhang, Martyn T Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Analysis of gasoline-related pollutant exposures and risks in California between 1996 and 2014.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Key Characteristics of Cardiovascular Toxicants.Environmental health perspectives · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cynthia V RiderDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Cliona M McHaleDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, California, USA.
Thomas F WebsterDepartment of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Leroy LoweGetting to Know Cancer (NGO), Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada.
William H GoodsonDepartment of Surgery, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA.
Michele A La MerrillDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Glenn RiceOffice of Research & Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Lauren ZeiseOffice of the Director, Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California, USA.
Luoping ZhangDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, California, USA.
Martyn T SmithDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, California, USA.

Funding

Training CoreP42ES004705 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI SMITH, MARTYN T · 1987 to 2025
$74.6M
Toxicological Assessments for the National Toxicology ProgramZIAES103316 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, NIGEL J · 2016 to 2019
$31.9M
Toxicological Assessments for the Division of the National Toxicology ProgramZICES103316 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, NIGEL J · 2020 to 2021
$18.5M
Novel Analytical and Experimental Approaches for Predicting the Biological Effects of MixturesR01ES027813 · NIEHS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI WEBSTER, THOMAS F · 2017 to 2021
$2.2M
Development and Testing of Response Surface Methods for Investigating the Epidemiology of Exposure to MixturesR01ES028800 · NIEHS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI WEBSTER, THOMAS F · 2018 to 2021
$1.7M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES103316NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES004705NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES027813NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES028800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople are exposed to numerous chemicals throughout their lifetimes. Many of these chemicals display one or more of the key characteristics of carcinogens or interact with processes described in the hallmarks of cancer. Therefore, evaluating the effects of chemical mixtures on cancer development is an important pursuit. Challenges involved in designing research studies to evaluate the joint action of chemicals on cancer risk include the time taken to perform the experiments because of the long latency and choosing an appropriate experimental design.

objectivesThe objectives of this work are to present the case for developing a research program on mixtures of environmental chemicals and cancer risk and describe recommended approaches.

methodsA working group comprising the coauthors focused attention on the design of mixtures studies to inform cancer risk assessment as part of a larger effort to refine the key characteristics of carcinogens and explore their application. Working group members reviewed the key characteristics of carcinogens, hallmarks of cancer, and mixtures research for other disease end points. The group discussed options for developing tractable projects to evaluate the joint effects of environmental chemicals on cancer development. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Three approaches for developing a research program to evaluate the effects of mixtures on cancer development were proposed: a chemical screening approach, a transgenic model-based approach, and a disease-centered approach. Advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8525.

Indexed as

CarcinogensNeoplasmsHumansRiskCarcinogens

Identifiers

PMID33784186
PMCPMC8009606

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.