Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,149

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop.

Open access
Kavlock, R J, Daston, G P, DeRosa, C, Fenner-Crisp, P, Gray, L E, Kaattari, S, Lucier, G, Luster, M, Mac, M J, Maczka, C, Miller, R, Moore, J, Rolland, R, Scott, G, Sheehan, D M, Sinks, T, Tilson, H A·1996·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

The hypothesis has been put forward that humans and wildlife species adverse suffered adverse health effects after exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Reported adverse effects include declines in populations, increases in cancers, and reduced reproductive function. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a workshop in April 1995 to bring together interested parties in an effort to identify research gaps related to this hypothesis and to establish priorities for future research activities. Approximately 90 invited participants were organized into work groups developed around the principal reported health effects-carcinogenesis, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and immunotoxicity-as well as along the risk assessment paradigm-hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Attention focused on both ecological and human health effects. In general, group felt that the hypothesis warranted a concerted research effort to evaluate its validity and that research should focus primarily on effects on development of reproductive capability, on improved exposure assessment, and on the effects of mixtures. This report summarizes the discussions of the work groups and details the recommendations for additional research.

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.96104s4715

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,149

Metadata

Authors
Kavlock, R. J., Daston, G. P., DeRosa, C., Fenner-Crisp, P., Gray, L. E., Kaattari, S., Lucier, G., Luster, M., Mac, M. J., Maczka, C., Miller, R., Moore, J., Rolland, R., Scott, G., Sheehan, D. M., Sinks, T., & Tilson, H. A.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
1996-08
Volume
104
Issue
suppl 4
Pages
715-740
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1988609641
Cited by
1,149
References
4
FWCI
42.01
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: Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.96104s4715
The paper
Kavlock, R. J., Daston, G. P., DeRosa, C., Fenner-Crisp, P., Gray, L. E., Kaattari, S., Lucier, G., Luster, M., Mac, M. J., Maczka, C., Miller, R., Moore, J., Rolland, R., Scott, G., Sheehan, D. M., Sinks, T., & Tilson, H. A. (1996). Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.96104s4715

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.