ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019
Advancing human health risk assessment.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- SciRAPepi Tool: Optimization of the SciRAP Tool for Evaluating the Reliability and Relevance of Observational Epidemiological Studies for Hazard and Risk Assessment of Chemicals.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Article
- Avoiding a reproducibility crisis in regulatory toxicology-on the fundamental role of ring trials.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Biocidal and antibiofilm activities of arginine-based surfactants against Candida isolates.Amino acids · 2023Article
- G × E interactions as a basis for toxicological uncertainty.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Review
- Practical Opportunities to Improve the Impact of Health Risk Assessment on Environmental and Public Health Decisions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A framework for chemical safety assessment incorporating new approach methodologies within REACH.Archives of toxicology · 2022Article
- Use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to meet regulatory requirements for the assessment of industrial chemicals and pesticides for effects on human health.Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Review
- The human hepatocyte TXG-MAPr: gene co-expression network modules to support mechanism-based risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Environment in Children's Health: A New Challenge for Risk Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Extrapolating from acute to chronic toxicity in vitro.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2021Article
- Translating Neurobehavioral Toxicity Across Species From Zebrafish to Rats to Humans: Implications for Risk Assessment.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Review
- Critical evaluation of human health risks due to hydraulic fracturing in natural gas and petroleum production.Archives of toxicology · 2020Review
- Using problem formulation for fit-for-purpose pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Editorial: Special Issue on EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society'.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Advancing human health risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society': concluding remarks.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current/traditional human health risk assessment paradigm is challenged by recent scientific and technical advances, and ethical demands. The current approach is considered too resource intensive, is not always reliable, can raise issues of reproducibility, is mostly animal based and does not necessarily provide an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of toxicity. From an ethical and scientific viewpoint, a paradigm shift is required to deliver testing strategies that enable reliable, animal-free hazard and risk assessments, which are based on a mechanistic understanding of chemical toxicity and make use of exposure science and epidemiological data. This shift will require a new philosophy, new data, multidisciplinary expertise and more flexible regulations. Re-engineering of available data is also deemed necessary as data should be accessible, readable, interpretable and usable. Dedicated training to build the capacity in terms of expertise is necessary, together with practical resources allocated to education. The dialogue between risk assessors, risk managers, academia and stakeholders should be promoted further to understand scientific and societal needs. Genuine interest in taking risk assessment forward should drive the change and should be supported by flexible funding. This publication builds upon presentations made and discussions held during the break-out session 'Advancing risk assessment science - Human health' at EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018).
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.