ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2009
Ad hoc and fast forward: the science of hormesis growth and development.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inference for the existence of hormetic dose-response relationships in toxicology studies.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Bisphenol A and risk management ethics.Bioethics · 2015Article
- Hormesis: a brief reply to an advocate.Environmental health perspectives · 2010Article
- Hormesis: a conversation with a critic.Environmental health perspectives · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHormesis is a binary response phenomenon with low-dose stimulation (or inhibition) of effects by substances producing opposite high-dose responses. Hormesis, after decades of obscurity, has undergone a renaissance in recent years, with rapid growth benefiting greatly from the systematized efforts of such proponents as the hormesis group at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst led by Edward J. Calabrese.
objectiveIn this commentary I analyze chemical hormesis methodology with reference to ad hoc scientific approaches for defining and characterizing hormesis. DISCUSSIONS: Proponents of hormesis have attempted a scientific characterization of hormesis through a battery of ad hoc methodologies using unvalidated criteria and other mechanisms for persistent database searches rather than through de novo hypothesis testing specific for hormesis. Here I discuss various scientific problems with this search-over-experiment approach, as well as other aspects of attempts at defining and characterizing the field.
conclusionsWide acceptance of hormesis by the broad scientific community and adoption of hormesis by public agencies for inclusion in health and regulatory policies have not occurred. Reasons may include the singular nature of hormesis research and directions followed in hormesis methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.