ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology
Sex and Gender Dimensions in Hazard and Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology. 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.
- Efferocytosis: unifying pathogenic hub in metabolic disorders-mechanistic landscapes, targeted therapies and translational bottlenecks.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The knowledge on hazards and risks connected to human exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is still very limited, despite several decades of research and regulatory efforts at the international level. In particular, sex/gender-related responses to such exposure have not been clearly articulated so far in any of the existing guidance documents or regulatory relevant opinions provided to the parties involved in the risk assessment and risk management of ENMs. We aimed to demonstrate the relevance of the sex/gender dimension for the characterization of the risks and hazards associated with ENMs by analyzing existing scientific data on sex-related differences in response to ENMs exposure. This was achieved by performing an extensive review of in vivo mammalian toxicity studies published in PubMed and Web of Science databases. Further analysis was performed only for data reported in publications that satisfied scientific quality criteria assessed using the GUIDEnano approach. Finally, we demonstrated the importance of the sex/gender dimension for safety testing of ENMs in the future and provided recommendations on how to include the sex/gender dimension in toxicity testing of ENMs to ensure precise, transparent, and reliable conclusions in the process of hazard and risk assessments. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.