Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33241884›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2021

Pop-guide: Population modeling guidance, use, interpretation, and development for ecological risk assessment.

Sandy Raimondo, Amelie Schmolke, Nathan Pollesch, Chiara Accolla, Nika Galic, Adrian Moore, Maxime Vaugeois, Pamela Rueda-Cediel, Andrew Kanarek, Jill Awkerman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Endogenous Lifecycle Models for Chemical Risk Assessment.Environmental science & technology · 2021
    Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Sandy RaimondoUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze, Florida, USA.
Amelie SchmolkeWaterborne Environmental, Inc, Leesburg, Virginia, USA.
Nathan PolleschUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze, Florida, USA.
Chiara AccollaUniversity of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Nika GalicSyngenta Crop Protection LLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Adrian MooreUniversity of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Maxime VaugeoisUniversity of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Pamela Rueda-CedielUniversity of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Andrew KanarekGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Jill AwkermanUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze, Florida, USA.
Valery ForbesUniversity of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assimilation of population models into ecological risk assessment (ERA) has been hindered by their range of complexity, uncertainty, resource investment, and data availability. Likewise, ensuring that the models address risk assessment objectives has been challenging. Recent research efforts have begun to tackle these challenges by creating an integrated modeling framework and decision guide to aid the development of population models with respect to ERA objectives and data availability. In the framework, the trade-offs associated with the generality, realism, and precision of an assessment are used to guide the development of a population model commensurate with the protection goal. The decision guide provides risk assessors with a stepwise process to assist them in developing a conceptual model that is appropriate for the assessment objective and available data. We have merged the decision guide and modeling framework into a comprehensive approach, Population modeling Guidance, Use, Interpretation, and Development for Ecological risk assessment (Pop-GUIDE), for the development of population models for ERA that is applicable across regulatory statutes and assessment objectives. In Phase 1 of Pop-GUIDE, assessors are guided through the trade-offs of ERA generality, realism, and precision, which are translated into model objectives. In Phase 2, available data are assimilated and characterized as general, realistic, and/or precise. Phase 3 provides a series of dichotomous questions to guide development of a conceptual model that matches the complexity and uncertainty appropriate for the assessment that is in concordance with the available data. This phase guides model developers and users to ensure consistency and transparency of the modeling process. We introduce Pop-GUIDE as the most comprehensive guidance for population model development provided to date and demonstrate its use through case studies using fish as an example taxon and the US Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Endangered Species Act as example regulatory statutes. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:767-784. © 2020 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

InsecticidesModels, TheoreticalAnimalsRisk AssessmentInsecticidesComplexityEcological risk assessmentGuidancePopulation modelingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33241884
PMCPMC8751981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.