The DOI matches its Crossref record.
THE RELEVANCE OF THE RAT LUNG RESPONSE TO PARTICLE OVERLOAD FOR HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT: A Workshop Consensus Report
Abstract
On 23-24 March 1998, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Risk Science Institute convened a workshop entitled "Relevance of the Rat Lung Response to Particle Overload for Human Risk Assessment." The workshop addressed the numerous study reports of lung tumors in rats resulting from chronic inhalation exposures to poorly soluble, nonfibrous particles of low acute toxicity and not directly genotoxic. These poorly soluble particles, indicated by the acronym PSPs (e.g., carbon black, coal dust, diesel soot, nonasbestiform talc, and titanium dioxide), elicit tumors in rats when deposition overwhelms the clearance mechanisms of the lung resulting in a condition referred to as "overload." These PSPs have been shown not to induce tumors in mice and hamsters, and the available data in humans are consistently negative. The objectives were twofold: (1) to provide guidance for risk assessment on the interpretation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic responses of the rat lung to PSPs; and (2) to identify important data gaps in our understanding of the lung responses of rats and other species to PSPs. Utilizing the five critical reviews of relevant literature that follow herein and the combined expertise and experience of the 30 workshop participants, a number of questions were addressed. The consensus views of the workshop participants are presented in this report. Because it is still not known with certainty whether high lung burdens of PSPs can lead to lung cancer in humans via mechanisms similar to those of the rat, in the absence of mechanistic data to the contrary it must be assumed that the rat model can identify potential carcinogenic hazards to humans. Since the apparent responsiveness of the rat model at overload is dependent on coexistent chronic active inflammation and cell proliferation, at lower lung doses where chronic active inflammation and cell proliferation are not present, no lung cancer hazard is anticipated.
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
Cited by
Grey Goo on the Skin? Nanotechnology, Cosmetic and Sunscreen Safety
Nohynek, G. J., Lademann, J., Ribaud, C., & Roberts, M. S. (2007) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408440601177780 · Cited by 644
Nanotechnology Safety Concerns Revisited
Stern, S. T., & McNeil, S. E. (2008) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm169 · Cited by 560
Yazdi, A. S., Guarda, G., Riteau, N., Drexler, S. K., Tardivel, A., Couillin, I., & Tschopp, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008155107 · Cited by 525
Donaldson, K., Stone, V, Clouter, A., Renwick, L., & MacNee, W. (2001) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.58.3.211 · Cited by 499
Monteiller, C., Tran, L., MacNee, W., Faux, S., Jones, A., Miller, B., & Donaldson, K. (2007) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.2005.024802 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- Authors
- Olin, S. S.
- Venue
- Inhalation Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 0895-8378 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7691
- OpenAlex
- W2165418613
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: THE RELEVANCE OF THE RAT LUNG RESPONSE TO PARTICLE OVERLOAD FOR HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT: A Workshop Consensus Report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08958370050029725
- The paper
- Olin, S. S. (2000). THE RELEVANCE OF THE RAT LUNG RESPONSE TO PARTICLE OVERLOAD FOR HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT: A Workshop Consensus Report. Inhalation Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370050029725
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.