Bisphenol-A and the great divide: a review of controversies in the field of endocrine disruption.

By Laura N. Vandenberg, M. Maffini, C. Sonnenschein, B. Rubin, A. Soto. Endocrine reviews, 2009

1,417 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8000b251eb7acefc80ae9864c2713d75a1ba5e30

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

1. J. Rochester
2. W. Welshons
3. F. V. vom Saal
4. A. Bolden
5. J. Heindel

Citations in the corpus

• Bisphenol S and F: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the Hormonal Activity of Bisphenol A Substitutes (2015, background): “Many researchers have raised concern over this over whelming evidence and have called for stricter regulation of BPA (Vandenberg et al. 2009, 2012).”
• Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. (2012, positive): “It has been argued that this type of testing is insufficient for understanding the effects of EDCs (31, 70, 495, 611).”
• Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Disease Susceptibility (2011, background): “There is also evidence that NMDR curves are generated by the integration of two or more monotonic dose response curves that occur through different pathways affecting a common endpoint with opposing effects [28, 29].”