Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32179163›Full record

ReviewFood and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association2020

Updated population minimal eliciting dose distributions for use in risk assessment of 14 priority food allergens.

Benjamin C Remington, Joost Westerhout, Marie Y Meima, W Marty Blom, Astrid G Kruizinga, Matthew W Wheeler, Steve L Taylor, Geert F Houben, Joseph L Baumert

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 186 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hospital-Based Food Challenges for the Diagnosis of Food Allergy-A BSACI Clinical Practice Statement.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Recent Advances in Food Allergens and Emerging Biosensing Technologies.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026
    Review
  6. Feeding the Skin? Foods in Personal Care Products and the Risk of Allergy.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Legume Allergens Pea, Chickpea, Lentil, Lupine and Beyond.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin C RemingtonThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Joost WesterhoutThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Marie Y MeimaThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands.
W Marty BlomThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands. Electronic address: marty.blom@tno.nl.
Astrid G KruizingaThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Matthew W WheelerRisk Evaluation Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Steve L TaylorFood Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.
Geert F HoubenThe Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Joseph L BaumertFood Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NLUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · USNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food allergy and allergen management are important global public health issues. In 2011, the first iteration of our allergen threshold database (ATDB) was established based on individual NOAELs and LOAELs from oral food challenge in roughly 1750 allergic individuals. Population minimal eliciting dose (EDp) distributions based on this dataset were published for 11 allergenic foods in 2014. Systematic data collection has continued (2011-2018) and the dataset now contains over 3400 data points. The current study provides new and updated EDp values for 14 allergenic foods and incorporates a newly developed Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data. ED01 and ED05 values, the doses at which 1%, and respectively 5%, of the respective allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction were determined. The 14 allergenic foods were cashew, celery, egg, fish, hazelnut, lupine, milk, mustard, peanut, sesame, shrimp (for crustacean shellfish), soy, walnut, and wheat. Updated ED01 estimates ranged between 0.03 mg for walnut protein and 26.2 mg for shrimp protein. ED05 estimates ranged between 0.4 mg for mustard protein and 280 mg for shrimp protein. The ED01 and ED05 values presented here are valuable in the risk assessment and subsequent risk management of allergenic foods.

Indexed as

AllergensAnimalsArachisFood HypersensitivityHumansJuglansMilkNutsRisk AssessmentSesamumAllergensAllergyFoodLabelingModel averagingRisk assessmentThreshold

Identifiers

PMID32179163
PMCPMC7748293
OpenAlexW3011423608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.