Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30925210›Full record

ReviewRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2019

Peak Exposures in Epidemiologic Studies and Cancer Risks: Considerations for Regulatory Risk Assessment.

Harvey Checkoway, Peter S J Lees, Linda D Dell, P Robinan Gentry, Kenneth A Mundt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Association between butadiene exposure and leukemia mortality in synthetic rubber industry workers.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Harvey CheckowayDepartment of Family Medicine & Public Health, San Diego School of Medicine, University of California, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Peter S J LeesJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Linda D DellRamboll, Amherst, MA (LDD) and Monroe, LA, USA.
P Robinan GentryRamboll, Amherst, MA (LDD) and Monroe, LA, USA.
Kenneth A MundtCardno Chemrisk, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review approaches for characterizing "peak" exposures in epidemiologic studies and methods for incorporating peak exposure metrics in dose-response assessments that contribute to risk assessment. The focus was on potential etiologic relations between environmental chemical exposures and cancer risks. We searched the epidemiologic literature on environmental chemicals classified as carcinogens in which cancer risks were described in relation to "peak" exposures. These articles were evaluated to identify some of the challenges associated with defining and describing cancer risks in relation to peak exposures. We found that definitions of peak exposure varied considerably across studies. Of nine chemical agents included in our review of peak exposure, six had epidemiologic data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in dose-response assessments to derive inhalation unit risk values. These were benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, trichloroethylene, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide. All derived unit risks relied on cumulative exposure for dose-response estimation and none, to our knowledge, considered peak exposure metrics. This is not surprising, given the historical linear no-threshold default model (generally based on cumulative exposure) used in regulatory risk assessments. With newly proposed US EPA rule language, fuller consideration of alternative exposure and dose-response metrics will be supported. "Peak" exposure has not been consistently defined and rarely has been evaluated in epidemiologic studies of cancer risks. We recommend developing uniform definitions of "peak" exposure to facilitate fuller evaluation of dose response for environmental chemicals and cancer risks, especially where mechanistic understanding indicates that the dose response is unlikely linear and that short-term high-intensity exposures increase risk.

Indexed as

AcrylonitrileAir PollutantsBenzeneEnvironmental ExposureEpidemiologic StudiesEthylene OxideFormaldehydeHumansLeukemiaLymphomaMethylene ChlorideNeoplasmsRisk AssessmentStyreneTrichloroethyleneUnited StatesAcrylonitrileAir PollutantsBenzeneEthylene OxideFormaldehydeMethylene ChlorideStyreneTrichloroethyleneCancer epidemiologypeak exposurerisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID30925210
PMCPMC6850123

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.