Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35754780›Full record

ArticleEcologies2022

Moving beyond Risk Quotients: Advancing Ecological Risk Assessment to Reflect Better, More Robust and Relevant Methods.

Sandy Raimondo, Valery E Forbes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Sandy RaimondoGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1017-2001
Valery E ForbesDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9819-9385

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Under standard guidance for conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs), the risks of chemical exposure to diverse organisms are most often based on deterministic point estimates evaluated against safety-factor-based levels of concern (LOCs). While the science and guidance for mechanistic effect models (e.g., demographic, population, and agent-based) have long been demonstrated to provide more ecologically relevant effect endpoints upon which risk can be evaluated, their application in ERAs has been limited, particularly in the US. This special issue highlights the state of the science in effect modeling for ERAs through demonstrated application of the recently published Population modeling Guidance, Use, Interpretation, and Development for ERA (Pop-GUIDE). We introduce this issue with a perspective on why it is critical to move past the current application of deterministic endpoints and LOCs. We demonstrate how the current, widely used approaches contain extensive uncertainty that could be reduced considerably by applying models that account for species life histories and other important endogenous and exogenous factors critical to species sustainability. We emphasize that it is long past time to incorporate better, more robust, and ecologically relevant effect models into ERAs, particularly for chronic risk determination. The papers in this special issue demonstrate how mechanistic models that follow Pop-GUIDE better inform ERAs compared to the current standard practice.

Indexed as

chemical effectsmechanistic effect modelingpopulationsrisk management

Identifiers

PMID35754780
PMCPMC9214658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.