Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35894754›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2022

Critical review and analysis of literature on low dose exposure to chemical mixtures in mammalian

Chris S Elcombe, Neil P Evans, Michelle Bellingham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Chris S ElcombeInstitute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7869-0123
Neil P EvansInstitute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7395-3222
Michelle BellinghamSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3646-8989

Funding

Transgenerational consequences of pre-conceptional and in utero exposure to real-life chemical mixtures on fertility and metabolic healthR01ES030374 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EVANS, NEIL PRICE, LEA, RICHARD · 2020 to 2024
$2.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES030374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anthropogenic chemicals are ubiquitous throughout the environment. Consequentially, humans are exposed to hundreds of anthropogenic chemicals daily. Current chemical risk assessments are primarily based on testing individual chemicals in rodents at doses that are orders of magnitude higher than that of human exposure. The potential risk from exposure to mixtures of chemicals is calculated using mathematical models of mixture toxicity based on these analyses. These calculations, however, do not account for synergistic or antagonistic interactions between co-exposed chemicals. While proven examples of chemical synergy in mixtures at low doses are rare, there is increasing evidence that, through non-conformance to current mixture toxicity models, suggests synergy. This review examined the published studies that have investigated exposure to mixtures of chemicals at low doses in mammalian

Indexed as

MammalsModels, TheoreticalAnimalsHumansRisk Assessmentexposurein vivolow doseMammalianmixturemodelreview

Identifiers

PMID35894754
PMCPMC9530410

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.