ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2019
Application of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty assessment tools in developing ranges of plausible toxicity values for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bio-Synthesis of TiOBiological trace element research · 2026Article
- Application of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty assessment tools in developing ranges of plausible toxicity values for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing interest in characterizing risk assessment uncertainty is highlighted by recent recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences. In this paper we demonstrate the utility of applying qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing uncertainty to enhance risk-based decision-making for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. The approach involved deconstructing the reference dose (RfD) via evaluation of the different assumptions, options, models and methods associated with derivation of the value, culminating in the development of a plausible range of potential values based on such areas of uncertainty. The results demonstrate that overall RfD uncertainty was high based on limitations in the process for selection (e.g., compliance with inclusion criteria related to internal validity of the co-critical studies, consistency with other studies), external validity (e.g., generalizing findings of acute, high-dose exposure scenarios to the general population), and selection and classification of the point of departure using data from the individual studies (e.g., lack of statistical and clinical significance). Building on sensitivity analyses conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2012, the resulting estimates of RfD values that account for the uncertainties ranged from ~1.5 to 179 pg/kg/day. It is anticipated that the range of RfDs presented herein, along with the characterization of uncertainties, will improve risk assessments of dioxins and provide important information to risk managers, because reliance on a single toxicity value limits the information needed for making decisions and gives a false sense of precision and accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.