The DOI matches its Crossref record.
IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for Humans
Abstract
The use of structured frameworks can be invaluable in promoting harmonization in the assessment of chemical risk. IPCS has therefore updated and extended its mode of action (MOA) framework for cancer to address the issue of human relevance of a carcinogenic response observed in an experimental study. The first stage is to determine whether it is possible to establish an MOA. This comprises a series of key events along the causal pathway to cancer, identified using a weight-of-evidence approach based on the Bradford Hill criteria. The key events are then compared first qualitatively and then quantitatively between the experimental animals and humans. Finally, a clear statement of confidence, analysis, and implications is produced. The IPCS human relevance framework for cancer provides an analytical tool to enable the transparent evaluation of the data, identification of key data gaps, and structured presentation of information that would be of value in the further risk assessment of the compound, even if relevancy cannot be excluded. This might include data on the shape of the dose-response curve, identification of any thresholds and recognition of potentially susceptible subgroups, for example, the basis of genetic or life-stage differences.
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
European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Andersson, N., Arena, M., Auteri, D., Barmaz, S., Grignard, E., Kienzler, A., Lepper, P., Lostia, A. M., Munn, S., et al. (2018) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311 · Cited by 555
Tarazona, J. V., Court-Marques, D., Tiramani, M., Reich, H., Pfeil, R., Istace, F., & Crivellente, F. (2017) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5 · Cited by 402
Cumulative risk assessment of pesticide residues in food
Boobis, A. R., Ossendorp, B. C., Banasiak, U., Hamey, P. Y., Sebestyen, I., & Moretto, A. (2008) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.06.004 · Cited by 323
Self-citationAdverse Outcome Pathway Development II: Best Practices
Villeneuve, D. L., Crump, D., Garcia-Reyero, N., Hecker, M., Hutchinson, T. H., LaLone, C. A., Landesmann, B., Lettieri, T., Munn, S., Nepelska, M., et al. (2014) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu200 · Cited by 255
Golden, R. (2011) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408444.2011.573467 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Boobis, A. R., Cohen, S. M., Dellarco, V., McGregor, D., Meek, M. E. (., Vickers, C., Willcocks, D., & Farland, W.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 781-792
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- OpenAlex
- W4229791719
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.21
- 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: IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for Humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10408440600977677
- The paper
- Boobis, A. R., Cohen, S. M., Dellarco, V., McGregor, D., Meek, M. E. (., Vickers, C., Willcocks, D., & Farland, W. (2006). IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for Humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440600977677
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.