Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32121330›Full record

ReviewToxins2020

Assessing the Effect of Mycotoxin Combinations: Which Mathematical Model Is (the Most) Appropriate?

Domagoj Kifer, Daniela Jakšić, Maja Šegvić Klarić

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Combined Toxicity of the Most Common Indoor Aspergilli.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Synergistic Inhibiting Effect of Phytochemicals inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Domagoj KiferDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovačića 1, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-7956-3484
Daniela JakšićDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Schrottova 39, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-7049-960X
Maja Šegvić KlarićDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Schrottova 39, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.

Funding

Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost IP-09-2014-5982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decades, many studies have examined the nature of the interaction between mycotoxins in biological models classifying interaction effects as antagonisms, additive effects, or synergisms based on a comparison of the observed effect with the expected effect of combination. Among several described mathematical models, the arithmetic definition of additivity and factorial analysis of variance were the most commonly used in mycotoxicology. These models are incorrectly based on the assumption that mycotoxin dose-effect curves are linear. More appropriate mathematical models for assessing mycotoxin interactions include Bliss independence, Loewe's additivity law, combination index, and isobologram analysis, Chou-Talalays median-effect approach, response surface, code for the identification of synergism numerically efficient (CISNE) and MixLow method. However, it seems that neither model is ideal. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these mathematical models.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsDrug InteractionsHumansMycotoxinsMycotoxinsChou-Talalay methodcombination indexisobologramLoewe additivityMixLowmycotoxin interaction

Identifiers

PMID32121330
PMCPMC7150917

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.