Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22740779›Full record

ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2012

Of reductionism and the pendulum swing: connecting toxicology and human health.

Jaap C Hanekamp, Aalt Bast, Jan Hjm Kwakman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "You Can't Always Get What You Want" - Linearity as the Golden Ratio of Toxicology.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jaap C HanekampRoosevelt Academy, The Netherlands, University of Massachusetts, and Chemical Food Safety & Toxicity Working Group of the Global Harmonization Initiative.
Aalt Bast
Jan Hjm Kwakman
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLRoosevelt Institute for American Studies · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this contribution we will show that research in the field of toxicology, pharmacology and physiology is by and large characterised by a pendulum swing of which the amplitudes represent risks and benefits of exposure. As toxicology usually tests at higher levels than the populace routinely is exposed to, it reverts to mostly linear extrapolative models that express the risks of exposure, irrespective of dosages, only. However, as we will explicate in two examples, depending on dosages, it is less easy to separate risks and benefits than current toxicological research and regulatory efforts suggest. The same chemical compound, in the final analysis, is represented within the boundaries of both amplitudes, that is, show a biphasic, hormetic, dose-response. This is notable, as low-level exposures from the food-matrix are progressively more under scrutiny as a result of increasing analytical capabilities. Presence of low-level concentrations of a chemical in food is a regulatory proxy for human health, but in light of this hormetic dose-response objectionable. Moreover, given that an ecological threshold probably holds for most, if not all, man-made (bio)organic chemicals, these will be found to be naturally present in the food matrix. Both aspects require toxicology to close the gap between reductionist models and its extrapolative deficiencies and real-life scenarios.

Indexed as

chloramphenicolhormesisnitratePendulum swingREACHreductionism

Identifiers

PMID22740779
PMCPMC3375484
OpenAlexW1965739338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.