Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34712366›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021

Opinion on the impact of non-monotonic dose responses on EFSA's human health risk assessments.

EFSA Scientific Committee, Simon More, Diane Benford, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Vasileios Bampidis, Claude Bragard, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Antonio Hernandez-Jerez, Kostas Koutsoumanis, Claude Lambré and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Estrogenic activity in tampon products.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

18 authors.

EFSA Scientific Committee
Simon More
Diane Benford
Susanne Hougaard Bennekou
Vasileios Bampidis
Claude Bragard
Thorhallur Halldorsson
Antonio Hernandez-Jerez
Kostas Koutsoumanis
Claude Lambré
Kyriaki Machera
Ewen Mullins
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Josef Schlatter
Dieter Schrenk
Dominique Turck
Jose Tarazona
Maged Younes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Opinion assesses the biological relevance of the non-monotonic dose responses (NMDR) identified in a previous EFSA External Report (Beausoleil et al., 2016) produced under GP/EFSA/SCER/2014/01 and the follow-up probabilistic assessment (Chevillotte et al., 2017a,b), focusing on the

Indexed as

biological relevancehuman health risk assessmentnon‐monotonic dose response (NMDR)probabilistic analysisreference dosestatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID34712366
PMCPMC8528485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.