Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27988137›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2017

Causal inference in cumulative risk assessment: The roles of directed acyclic graphs.

L Elizabeth Brewer, J Michael Wright, Glenn Rice, Lucas Neas, Linda Teuschler

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bayesian network-based framework for exposure-response study design and interpretation.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019
    Article
  15. Epidemiology: a foundation of environmental decision making.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2018
    Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L Elizabeth BrewerOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of the Science Advisor, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, MC8195R, Washington, DC 20004, United States. Electronic address: brewer.beth@epa.gov.
J Michael WrightU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., MS-A110, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States. Electronic address: wright.michael@epa.gov.
Glenn RiceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., MS-A110, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States.
Lucas NeasU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, B305-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, United States.
Linda TeuschlerLK Teuschler and Associates, St. Petersburg, FL 33707, United States.
Environmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) address exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and often focus on characterization of health risks in vulnerable populations. Evaluating complex exposure-response relationships in CRAs requires the use of formal and rigorous methods for causal inference. Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are graphical causal models used to organize and communicate knowledge about the underlying causal structure that generates observable data. Using existing graphical theories for causal inference with DAGs, risk analysts can identify confounders and effect measure modifiers to determine if the available data are both internally valid to obtain unbiased risk estimates and are generalizable to populations of interest. Conditional independencies implied by the structure of a DAG can be used to test assumptions used in a CRA against empirical data in a selected study and can contribute to the evidence evaluations related to specific causal pathways. This can facilitate quantitative use of these data, as well as help identify key research gaps, prioritize data collection activities, and evaluate risk management alternatives. DAGs also enable risk analysts to be explicit about sources of uncertainty and to determine whether a causal effect can be estimated from available data. Using a conceptual model and DAG for a hypothetical community located near a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), we illustrate the advantages of using DAGs for evaluating causality in CRAs. DAGs also can be used in conjunction with weight of evidence (WOE) methodology to improve causal analysis for CRA, which could lead to more effective interventions to reduce population health risks.

Indexed as

CausalityComputer GraphicsModels, TheoreticalConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsHumansRisk AssessmentUncertaintyEnvironmental PollutantsCausal inferenceCausal modelsConceptual modelConfoundingCumulative risk assessmentDirected acyclic graph

Identifiers

PMID27988137
PMCPMC11058633
OpenAlexW2566127679

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.