ArticleALTEX2015
From "weight of evidence" to quantitative data integration using multicriteria decision analysis and Bayesian methods.
Article in ALTEX, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Integration of QSAR and NAM in the Read-Across Process for an Effective and Relevant Toxicological Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!Environment international · 2023Review
- Complex study of Cancer Morbidity and Inflammatory Markers, Presented in the Blood Serum of the Rural Population of Sachkhere District of Georgia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Review
- Internationalization of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology.ALTEX · 2020Article
- Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Big-data and machine learning to revamp computational toxicology and its use in risk assessment.Toxicology research · 2018Review
- Emerging risks identification on food and feed - EFSA.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- Linking People to Coastal Habitats: A meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services on the coast.Ocean & coastal management · 2018Article
- Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- Article
- Systems Biology to Support Nanomaterial Grouping.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2017Review
- A Tractable Method for Measuring Nanomaterial Risk Using Bayesian Networks.Nanoscale research letters · 2016Article
- Article
- Supporting read-across using biological data.ALTEX · 2016Article
- Analysis of publically available skin sensitization data from REACH registrations 2008-2014.ALTEX · 2016Article
- How decision analysis can further nanoinformatics.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
"Weighing" available evidence in the process of decision-making is unavoidable, yet it is one step that routinely raises suspicions: what evidence should be used, how much does it weigh, and whose thumb may be tipping the scales? This commentary aims to evaluate the current state and future roles of various types of evidence for hazard assessment as it applies to environmental health. In its recent evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System assessment process, the National Research Council committee singled out the term "weight of evidence" (WoE) for critique, deeming the process too vague and detractive to the practice of evaluating human health risks of chemicals. Moving the methodology away from qualitative, vague and controversial methods towards generalizable, quantitative and transparent methods for appropriately managing diverse lines of evidence is paramount for both regulatory and public acceptance of the hazard assessments. The choice of terminology notwithstanding, a number of recent Bayesian WoE-based methods, the emergence of multi criteria decision analysis for WoE applications, as well as the general principles behind the foundational concepts of WoE, show promise in how to move forward and regain trust in the data integration step of the assessments. We offer our thoughts on the current state of WoE as a whole and while we acknowledge that many WoE applications have been largely qualitative and subjective in nature, we see this as an opportunity to turn WoE towards a quantitative direction that includes Bayesian and multi criteria decision analysis.
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.