Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22438929›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Modeling effective dosages in hormetic dose-response studies.

Regina G Belz, Hans-Peter Piepho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Dissection of the hormetic curve: analysis of components and mechanisms.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Universal Delayed Difference Model Fitting Dose-response Curves.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  15. A Conserved Mechanism for Hormesis in Molecular Systems.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Regina G BelzAgroecology Unit, University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics, Stuttgart, Germany. regina.belz@uni-hohenheim.de
Hans-Peter Piepho

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo hormetic modifications of a monotonically decreasing log-logistic dose-response function are most often used to model stimulatory effects of low dosages of a toxicant in plant biology. As just one of these empirical models is yet properly parameterized to allow inference about quantities of interest, this study contributes the parameterized functions for the second hormetic model and compares the estimates of effective dosages between both models based on 23 hormetic data sets. Based on this, the impact on effective dosage estimations was evaluated, especially in case of a substantially inferior fit by one of the two models. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThe data sets evaluated described the hormetic responses of four different test plant species exposed to 15 different chemical stressors in two different experimental dose-response test designs. Out of the 23 data sets, one could not be described by any of the two models, 14 could be better described by one of the two models, and eight could be equally described by both models. In cases of misspecification by any of the two models, the differences between effective dosages estimates (0-1768%) greatly exceeded the differences observed when both models provided a satisfactory fit (0-26%). This suggests that the conclusions drawn depending on the model used may diverge considerably when using an improper hormetic model especially regarding effective dosages quantifying hormesis. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The study showed that hormetic dose responses can take on many shapes and that this diversity can not be captured by a single model without risking considerable misinterpretation. However, the two empirical models considered in this paper together provide a powerful means to model, prove, and now also to quantify a wide range of hormetic responses by reparameterization. Despite this, they should not be applied uncritically, but after statistical and graphical assessment of their adequacy.

Indexed as

HormesisModels, BiologicalAmaranthusDatabases, FactualDose-Response Relationship, DrugGerminationHordeumLactucaMathematical ConceptsMedicago sativaPlant DevelopmentPlantsSinapisToxins, BiologicalTriticumToxins, Biological

Identifiers

PMID22438929
PMCPMC3306408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.