ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2009
Hormesis: a conversation with a critic.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Titanium nanoparticles activate a transcriptional response in Arabidopsis that enhances tolerance to low phosphate, osmotic stress and pathogen infection.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Biostimulant Capacity of an Enzymatic Extract From Rice Bran Against Ozone-Induced Damage inFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Phytotoxic Effect of InvasiveMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- A web-based tool for designing experimental studies to detect hormesis and estimate the threshold dose.Statistical papers (Berlin, Germany) · 2018Article
- Plant Hormesis Management with Biostimulants of Biotic Origin in Agriculture.Frontiers in plant science · 2017Review
- Hormesis: a brief reply to an advocate.Environmental health perspectives · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this commentary I respond to points raised in the commentary by Mushak [Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333-1338 (2009)], which principally concerns studies by me and my colleagues concerning the frequency of hormesis in toxicology. DISCUSSION: In this commentary I demonstrate that Mushak's analysis contains critical statistical errors and misunderstandings of statistical concepts that invalidate its conclusions concerning the frequency of hormesis in the toxicologic literature.
conclusionsIn his commentary Mushak offers no significant new conceptual insights, and his key technical criticisms of hormesis frequency findings are unfounded.
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.