Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28520487›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2017

Chemical Risk Assessment: Traditional vs Public Health Perspectives.

Maureen R Gwinn, Daniel A Axelrad, Tina Bahadori, David Bussard, Wayne E Cascio, Kacee Deener, David Dix, Russell S Thomas, Robert J Kavlock, Thomas A Burke

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Children's Environmental Health: A Systems Approach for Anticipating Impacts from Chemicals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Bayesian network-based framework for exposure-response study design and interpretation.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Epidemiology: a foundation of environmental decision making.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Maureen R GwinnAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Daniel A AxelradAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Tina BahadoriAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
David BussardAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wayne E CascioAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kacee DeenerAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
David DixAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Russell S ThomasAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Robert J KavlockAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Thomas A BurkeAt the time of the writing of this article, all of the authors were with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preventing adverse health effects of environmental chemical exposure is fundamental to protecting individual and public health. When done efficiently and properly, chemical risk assessment enables risk management actions that minimize the incidence and effects of environmentally induced diseases related to chemical exposure. However, traditional chemical risk assessment is faced with multiple challenges with respect to predicting and preventing disease in human populations, and epidemiological studies increasingly report observations of adverse health effects at exposure levels predicted from animal studies to be safe for humans. This discordance reinforces concerns about the adequacy of contemporary risk assessment practices for protecting public health. It is becoming clear that to protect public health more effectively, future risk assessments will need to use the full range of available data, draw on innovative methods to integrate diverse data streams, and consider health endpoints that also reflect the range of subtle effects and morbidities observed in human populations. Considering these factors, there is a need to reframe chemical risk assessment to be more clearly aligned with the public health goal of minimizing environmental exposures associated with disease.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAnimalsEnvironmental ExposureForecastingHumansIncidenceModels, AnimalPublic HealthRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28520487
PMCPMC5463214
OpenAlexW2614285191

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.