ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2017
Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
163 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of the toxic potential of parabens in fish.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Functional Mapping of Neurodevelopmental Disease Pathways to Key Neurodevelopmental Processes Represented in the Developmental Neurotoxicity In Vitro Testing Battery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026Article
- Glutamate: Safe and Adequate Intake Levels for Infants-Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Benchmark Approach to Unravel Fluoride Toxicity: Liver and Kidney Disruptions in Subacutely Exposed Rats.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Leveraging developmental neurotoxicity data in zebrafish embryos through the use of artificial intelligence methods.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Interpretation of in vitro concentration-response data for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making: Report from the 2022 IWGT quantitative analysis expert working group meeting.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Risk prioritisation of (emerging) contaminants in aquaculture production.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Advancing the One Health Framework in EU Plant Protection Product Regulation: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Article
- Bisphenol AF Induces Hepatic Steatosis via Succinate-SUCNR1-Mediated Macrophage-Hepatocyte Interactions: An Adverse Outcome Pathway Study in Male C57BL/6 Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Cluefish: mining the dark matter of transcriptional data series with over-representation analysis enhanced by aggregated biological prior knowledge.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Hypertension in People Exposed to Environmental Cadmium: Roles for 20-Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic Acid in the Kidney.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- Trace Mineral Imbalances in Global Health: Challenges, Biomarkers, and the Role of Serum Analysis.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Chemical Food Safety in Europe Under the Spotlight: Principles, Regulatory Framework and Roadmap for Future Directions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The use of canonical dose-response models for benchmark dose analysis of continuous toxicological data.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2025Review
- Selection of the critical effect size alters hazard characterization - a retrospective analysis of key studies used for risk assessments of PFAS.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Recommended Occupational Exposure Limits for GMA Using Benchmark Dose and Bayesian Model Averaging.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- Article
103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log-likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose-response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose-response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach.
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.