Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26097979›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2015

The Scientific Basis of Uncertainty Factors Used in Setting Occupational Exposure Limits.

D A Dankovic, B D Naumann, A Maier, M L Dourson, L S Levy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide-A Critical Commentary.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Comparative review of human health reference values of the United States.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Adverse effects in traditional and alternative toxicity tests.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Developing an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC).Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

D A Dankovica Education and Information Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , Cincinnati , Ohio.
B D Naumannb Global Safety and the Environment, Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station , New Jersey.
A Maierc University of Cincinnati , College of Medicine, Department of Environmental Health, Cincinnati , Ohio.
M L Doursond The Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment Center of the University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Department of Environmental Health, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment , Cincinnati , Ohio.
L S Levye Institute for Environment, Health, Risks and Futures, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The uncertainty factor concept is integrated into health risk assessments for all aspects of public health practice, including by most organizations that derive occupational exposure limits. The use of uncertainty factors is predicated on the assumption that a sufficient reduction in exposure from those at the boundary for the onset of adverse effects will yield a safe exposure level for at least the great majority of the exposed population, including vulnerable subgroups. There are differences in the application of the uncertainty factor approach among groups that conduct occupational assessments; however, there are common areas of uncertainty which are considered by all or nearly all occupational exposure limit-setting organizations. Five key uncertainties that are often examined include interspecies variability in response when extrapolating from animal studies to humans, response variability in humans, uncertainty in estimating a no-effect level from a dose where effects were observed, extrapolation from shorter duration studies to a full life-time exposure, and other insufficiencies in the overall health effects database indicating that the most sensitive adverse effect may not have been evaluated. In addition, a modifying factor is used by some organizations to account for other remaining uncertainties-typically related to exposure scenarios or accounting for the interplay among the five areas noted above. Consideration of uncertainties in occupational exposure limit derivation is a systematic process whereby the factors applied are not arbitrary, although they are mathematically imprecise. As the scientific basis for uncertainty factor application has improved, default uncertainty factors are now used only in the absence of chemical-specific data, and the trend is to replace them with chemical-specific adjustment factors whenever possible. The increased application of scientific data in the development of uncertainty factors for individual chemicals also has the benefit of increasing the transparency of occupational exposure limit derivation. Improved characterization of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors has led to increasing rigor and transparency in their application as part of the overall occupational exposure limit derivation process.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansNo-Observed-Adverse-Effect LevelOccupational ExposureRisk AssessmentSpecies SpecificityToxicologyUncertaintyadjustment factoroccupational exposurerisk assessmentuncertainty factor

Identifiers

PMID26097979
PMCPMC4643360

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.