The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endocrine Disruption in Wildlife: A Critical Review of the Evidence
Abstract
In recent years, a number of man-made chemicals have been shown to be able to mimic endogenous hormones, and it has been hypothesized that alterations in the normal pattern of reproductive development seen in some populations of wildlife are linked with exposure to these chemicals. Of particular importance are those compounds that mimic estrogens and androgens (and their antagonists), because of their central role in reproductive function. In fact, the evidence showing that such chemicals actually do mimic (or antagonize) the action of hormones in the intact animal is limited. In only a few cases have laboratory studies shown that chemicals that mimic hormones at the molecular level (in vitro) also cause reproductive dysfunction in vivo at environmentally relevant concentrations. In addition, the reported studies on wild populations of animals are limited to a very few animal species and they have often centered on localized 'hot-spots' of chemical discharges. Nevertheless, many of these xenobiotics are persistent and accumulate in the environment, and therefore a more widespread phenomenon of endocrine disruption in wildlife is possible. This article reviews the evidence, from both laboratory and field studies, that exposure to steroid hormone mimics may impair reproductive function and critically assesses the weight of evidence for endocrine disruption in wildlife.
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 nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade
Mangelsdorf, D. J., Thummel, C., Beato, M., Herrlich, P., Schütz, G., Umesono, K., Blumberg, B., Kastner, P., Mark, M., Chambon, P., et al. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90199-x · Cited by 6,964
Kelce, W. R., Monosson, E., Gamcsik, M. P., Laws, S. C., & Gray, L. E. (1994) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/taap.1994.1117 · Cited by 542
Cited by
State-of-the-science of endocrine disrupting chemicals, 2012
Bergman, Å., Heindel, J., Jobling, S., Kidd, K., & Zoeller, R. T. (2012) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.020 · Cited by 1,388
Self-citationNash, J. P., Kime, D. E., Van der Ven, L. T. M., Wester, P. W., Brion, F., Maack, G., Stahlschmidt-Allner, P., & Tyler, C. R. (2004) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.7209 · Cited by 664
Self-citationEnvironmental Signaling: What Embryos and Evolution Teach Us About Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
McLachlan, J. A. (2001) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/edrv.22.3.0432 · Cited by 608
Örn, S., Holbech, H., Madsen, T. H., Norrgren, L., & Petersen, G. I. (2003) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/s0166-445x(03)00177-2 · Cited by 300
Cai, Y.-Q., Jiang, G.-B., Liu, J.-F., & Zhou, Q.-X. (2003) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.aca.2003.08.006 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Tyler, C. R., Jobling, S., & Sumpter, J. P.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 319-361
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- OpenAlex
- W2026302267
- Cited by
- 1,061
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.60
- 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: Endocrine Disruption in Wildlife: A Critical Review of the Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10408449891344236
- The paper
- Tyler, C. R., Jobling, S., & Sumpter, J. P. (1998). Endocrine Disruption in Wildlife: A Critical Review of the Evidence. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408449891344236
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.