Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30520244›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2019

Assessing the population relevance of endocrine-disrupting effects for nontarget vertebrates exposed to plant protection products.

Mark Crane, Nina Hallmark, Laurent Lagadic, Katharina Ott, Dan Pickford, Thomas Preuss, Helen Thompson, Pernille Thorbek, Lennart Weltje, James R Wheeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Mark CraneAG-HERA, Faringdon, United Kingdom.
Nina HallmarkBayer SAS, Crop Science Division, Regulatory Toxicology, Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France.
Laurent LagadicBayer AG, Crop Science Division, Environmental Safety, Monheim am Rhein, Germany.
Katharina OttBASF SE, Crop Protection-Ecotoxicology, Limburgerhof, Germany.
Dan PickfordSyngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Thomas PreussBayer AG, Crop Science Division, Environmental Safety, Monheim am Rhein, Germany.
Helen ThompsonSyngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Pernille ThorbekSyngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Lennart WeltjeBASF SE, Crop Protection-Ecotoxicology, Limburgerhof, Germany.
James R WheelerCorteva Agriscience, Agriculture Division of DowDuPont, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission intends to protect vertebrate wildlife populations by regulating plant protection product (PPP) active substances that have endocrine-disrupting properties with a hazard-based approach. In this paper we consider how the Commission's hazard-based regulation and accompanying guidance can be operationalized to ensure that a technically robust process is used to distinguish between substances with adverse population-level effects and those for which it can be demonstrated that adverse effects observed (typically in the laboratory) do not translate into adverse effects at the population level. Our approach is to use population models within the adverse outcome pathway framework to link the nonlinear relationship between adverse effects at the individual and population levels in the following way: (1) use specific protection goals for focal wildlife populations within an ecosystem services framework; (2) model the effects of changes in population-related inputs on focal species populations with individual-based population models to determine thresholds between negligible and nonnegligible (i.e., adverse) population-level effects; (3) compare these thresholds with the relevant endpoints from laboratory toxicity tests to determine whether they are likely to be exceeded at hazard-based limits or the maximum tolerated dose/concentration from the experimental studies. If the population threshold is not exceeded, then the substance should not be classified as an endocrine disruptor with population-relevant adversity unless there are other lines of evidence within a weight-of-evidence approach to challenge this. We believe this approach is scientifically robust and still addresses the political and legal requirement for a hazard-based assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:278-291. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

AmphibiansAnimalsBirdsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental PollutantsFishesMammalsRisk AssessmentEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental PollutantsEndocrine disruptionEuropean UnionHazard assessmentPlant protection productVertebrate population

Identifiers

PMID30520244
PMCPMC6850575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.