Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 905

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity.

Open access
Welshons, Wade V, Thayer, Kristina A, Judy, Barbara M, Taylor, Julia A, Curran, Edward M, vom Saal, Frederick S·2003·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Information concerning the fundamental mechanisms of action of both natural and environmental hormones, combined with information concerning endogenous hormone concentrations, reveals how endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity (EEDCs) can be active at concentrations far below those currently being tested in toxicological studies. Using only very high doses in toxicological studies of EEDCs thus can dramatically underestimate bioactivity. Specifically: a) The hormonal action mechanisms and the physiology of delivery of EEDCs predict with accuracy the low-dose ranges of biological activity, which have been missed by traditional toxicological testing. b) Toxicology assumes that it is valid to extrapolate linearly from high doses over a very wide dose range to predict responses at doses within the physiological range of receptor occupancy for an EEDC; however, because receptor-mediated responses saturate, this assumption is invalid. c) Furthermore, receptor-mediated responses can first increase and then decrease as dose increases, contradicting the assumption that dose-response relationships are monotonic. d) Exogenous estrogens modulate a system that is physiologically active and thus is already above threshold, contradicting the traditional toxicological assumption of thresholds for endocrine responses to EEDCs. These four fundamental issues are problematic for risk assessment methods used by regulatory agencies, because they challenge the traditional use of extrapolation from high-dose testing to predict responses at the much lower environmentally relevant doses. These doses are within the range of current exposures to numerous chemicals in wildlife and humans. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the type of positive and negative controls appropriate to the study of endocrine responses are not part of traditional toxicological testing and are frequently omitted, or when present, have been misinterpreted.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.5494

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 905

Metadata

Authors
Welshons, W. V., Thayer, K. A., Judy, B. M., Taylor, J. A., Curran, E. M., & vom Saal, F. S.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2003-06
Volume
111
Issue
8
Pages
994-1006
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2090991839
Cited by
905
References
5
FWCI
22.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.5494
The paper
Welshons, W. V., Thayer, K. A., Judy, B. M., Taylor, J. A., Curran, E. M., & vom Saal, F. S. (2003). Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5494

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.