The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens
Open accessAbstract
A number of tests have been described which are thought to be capable of identifying carcinogens without using the actual induction of cancer as an endpoint. This study compared the performance of 6 such tests on a selection of 120 organic chemicals. The tests studies were: (1) mutation of Salmonella typhimurium, (2) cell transformation, (3) degranulation of endoplasmic reticulum, (4) sebaceous gland suppression, (5) tetrazolium reduction and (6) subcutaneous implant. A further 4 tests were examined briefly, but were not included in the complete evaluation. The chemicals were classified into carcinogens (58) and non-carcinogens (62) on the basis of published experimental data, and into 1 of 4 broad chemical classes. There was considerable variation between tests in their ability to predict carcinogenicity, with the cell-transformation test and the bacterial-mutation test being the most accurate (94% and 93% accurate respectively). These 2 tests were considered to be of general use in screening, since they were clearly more accurate than the others. Statistical consideration of various combinations of these tests showed that the use of cell transformation and bacterial mutation together, provide an advantage over the use of either test alone. The inclusion of the other 4 tests in a screening battery predictably resulted in a great increase in overall inaccuracy and loss of discrimination, even though the detection of carcinogens is improved. All the tests were shown to generate both false positive and false negative results, a situation which may be controlled by the use, where possible, of appropriate chemical-class controls, to identify the test which is optimal for the class of chemical under test. Structural analogy may have a part to play in the rapid detection of environmental carcinogens, and some general guidelines for its use are given.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Production of Malignant Primary Hepatic Tumours in the Rat by Feeding Dimethylnitrosamine
Magee, P. N., & Barnes, J. M. (1956) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1956.15 · Cited by 900
Cited by
Identifying Environmental Chemicals Causing Mutations and Cancer
Ames, B. N. (1979) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.373122 · Cited by 586
Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenesis
Miller, E. C., & Miller, J. A. (1981) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19810301)47:5+<1055::aid-cncr2820471302>3.0.co;2-3 · Cited by 417
Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests
Cooper, J. A., Saracci, R., & Cole, P. (1979) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1979.10 · Cited by 351
Bomhard, E. M., & Herbold, B. A. (2005) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408440500442384 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Purchase, I. F., Longstaff, E., Ashby, J., Styles, J. A., Anderson, D., Lefevre, P. A., & Westwood, F. R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1978-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 873-903
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2016293030
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1978.132
- The paper
- Purchase, I. F., Longstaff, E., Ashby, J., Styles, J. A., Anderson, D., Lefevre, P. A., & Westwood, F. R. (1978). An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1978.132
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.