NIH Information Quality

Draft Report on Carcinogens Monograph on Shiftwork, Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption

Document, Report, or Other Product Information
Title: Draft Report on Carcinogens Monograph on Shiftwork, Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption
Subject: Peer review of the Draft Report on Carcinogens Monograph on Shiftwork, Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption
Purpose (e.g., abstract): NTP is evaluating shiftwork, light at night, and circadian disruption for possible listing in the Report on Carcinogens. The draft RoC monograph consists of an assessment of human, experimental animal, and mechanistic data. It presents NTP’s preliminary conclusions regarding level of evidence and the preliminary listing recommendation for listing in the Report on Carcinogens. The purpose is to have external peer review of the draft monograph. Once the peer review is set, information will be posted at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/rocprp
Information Product Contact
ISI or HISA: HISA
Link to Information Product:
IC: NIEHS
IC Division, Office, or Program: Division of the National Toxicology Program
NIH Contact: Mary Wolfe
984-287-3209
[email protected]
Reviewer Names and Expertise:
Review Description: to obtain external, scientific peer review of the draft RoC monograph Date of Review:
Date of Review:
Number of Reviewers: 6-8
Reviewer Nominations Requested?
Upcoming Panels, Events: View Upcoming Panels, Events, Notices, Meeting Updates
Technical/Draft Reports, Public Comments and Presentations: https://infoquality.osp.od.nih.gov/once%20date%20is%20set,%20see%20https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38854
Past Roster, Notices, Meeting Updates: View Past Roster, Notices, Meeting Updates
Reviewer Expertise: exposure assessment, toxicology, genetic toxicology, carcinogenicity, pathology, epidemiology, metabolism
How Selected: NTP
Opportunity for Public Comment? YES
Did any reviewers require any exception to the applicable independence or COI standards of the Bulletin, including determination by the Sec./Dep. Sec. pursuant to Section (3)(c)?
Were any waivers, deferrals, exemptions, or alterative peer review processes used?
Any Public Meetings?
Number of Public Comments Received
This page last reviewed on