This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

57/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures

Plain-language summary

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) are released into environment from different sources. They are mainly used in packaging industries, pesticides and food constituents. Clinical evidence, experimental models, and epidemiological studies suggest that EDC have major risks for human by targeting different organs and systems in the body. Multiple mechanisms are involved in targeting the normal system, through estrogen receptors, nuclear receptors and steroidal receptors activation. In this review, different methods by which xenobiotics stimulate signaling pathways and genetic mutation or DNA methylation have been discussed. These methods help to understand the results of xenobiotic action on the endocrine system. Endocrine disturbances in the human body result in breast cancer, ovarian problems, thyroid eruptions, testicular carcinoma, Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, nerve damage and obesity. EDC characterize a wide class of compounds such as organochlorinated pesticides, industrial wastes, plastics and plasticizers, fuels and numerous other elements that exist in the environment or are in high use during daily life. The interactions and mechanism of toxicity in relation to human general health problems, especially endocrine disturbances with particular reference to reproductive problems, diabetes, and breast, testicular and ovarian cancers should be deeply investigated. There should also be a focus on public awareness of these EDC risks and their use in routine life. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize all evidence regarding different physiological disruptions in the body and possible involved mechanisms, to prove the association between endocrine disruptions and human diseases.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Maqbool, F., Mostafalou, S., Bahadar, H., & Abdollahi, M. (2016). Review of endocrine disorders associated with environmental toxicants and possible involved mechanisms. Life sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2015.10.022

Vancouver

Maqbool F, Mostafalou S, Bahadar H, Abdollahi M. Review of endocrine disorders associated with environmental toxicants and possible involved mechanisms. Life sciences. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2015.10.022. PMID: 26497928.

BibTeX

@article{maqbool2016-26497928,
  author  = {Maqbool, F. and Mostafalou, S. and Bahadar, H. and Abdollahi, M.},
  title   = {{Review of endocrine disorders associated with environmental toxicants and possible involved mechanisms}},
  journal = {Life sciences},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.lfs.2015.10.022},
  pmid    = {26497928},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2015.10.022}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Clinical evidence, experimental models, and epidemiological studies suggest that EDC have major risks for human by targeting different organs and systems in the body.
These methods help to understand the results of xenobiotic action on the endocrine system.
Endocrine disturbances in the human body result in breast cancer, ovarian problems, thyroid eruptions, testicular carcinoma, Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, nerve damage and obesity.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 57/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Life sciences)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26497928)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	33 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100.
Total	57 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also tagged “air”

237 studies in the library carry the topic tag “air”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 237 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →