Anogenital distance: Defining "normal" [1]

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 114, Issue 7, 2006, Pages

  Weiss, Bernard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEAD; PHTHALIC ACID;

ANOGENITAL DISTANCE; ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INFANT; LETTER; MALE; NORMAL VALUE; PRENATAL EXPOSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 33745779076     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.114-a399a     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Bellinger DC. 2006. Neurobehavioral assessment in studies of exposures to neurotoxicants. In: Neurotoxicity and Developmental Disorders (Davidson PW, Myers CJ, Weiss B, eds). San Diego, CA:Elsevier Academic Press, 263-300.
2. CDC. 1991. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. Atlanta, GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
3. McEwen GN Jr, Renner G. 2006. Validity of anogenital distance as a marker of in utero phthalate exposure. Environ Health Perspect 114:A19-20.
4. Rose G. 1981. Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease. BMJ 282:1847-1851.
5. Sharpe RM. 2001. Hormones and testis development and the possible adverse effects of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Lett 120:221-322.
6. Swan SH, Main KM, Liu F, Stewart SL, Kruse RL, Calafat AM, et al. 2005. Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. Environ Health Perspect 113:1056-1061.
7. Weiss B. 1988. Neurobehavioral toxicity as a basis for risk assessment. Trends Pharmacol Sci 9:59-62.