Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635712›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2023

Application of probabilistic methods to address variability and uncertainty in estimating risks for non-cancer health effects.

Greylin H Nielsen, Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, Jonathan I Levy, Roberta F White, Daniel A Axelrad, Juleen Lam, Nicholas Chartres, Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, Swati D G Rayasam, Rachel M Shaffer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Comparative review of human health reference values of the United States.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

13 authors.

Greylin H NielsenDepartment of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T4W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Wendy J Heiger-BernaysDepartment of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T4W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. whb@bu.edu.
Jonathan I LevyDepartment of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T4W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Roberta F WhiteDepartment of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T4W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Daniel A AxelradIndependent Consultant, Washington, DC, USA.
Juleen LamDepartment of Public Health, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA.
Nicholas ChartresProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dimitri Panagopoulos AbrahamssonProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Swati D G RayasamProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rachel M ShafferDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lauren ZeiseOffice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA, USA.
Tracey J WoodruffProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gary L GinsbergDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Training CoreP42ES007381 · NIEHS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI SHERR, DAVID H · 1995 to 2019
$46.1M
UCSF Environmental Research and Translation for Health Center (EaRTH Center)P30ES030284 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JENNIFER C FUNG, Tracey J. Woodruff · 2020 to 2026
$11.2M
Environmental Epidemiology in Community SettingsT32ES014562 · NIEHS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Birgit Gunhild Claus Henn · 2006 to 2026
$7.7M
Fine particulate air pollution, neuropathologies, and Alzheimers disease.F31ES030972 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHAFFER, RACHEL · 2019 to 2019
$45k
NIEHS NIH HHS F31 ES030972NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES030284NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES007381NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES014562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human health risk assessment currently uses the reference dose or reference concentration (RfD, RfC) approach to describe the level of exposure to chemical hazards without appreciable risk for non-cancer health effects in people. However, this "bright line" approach assumes that there is minimal risk below the RfD/RfC with some undefined level of increased risk at exposures above the RfD/RfC and has limited utility for decision-making. Rather than this dichotomous approach, non-cancer risk assessment can benefit from incorporating probabilistic methods to estimate the amount of risk across a wide range of exposures and define a risk-specific dose. We identify and review existing approaches for conducting probabilistic non-cancer risk assessments. Using perchloroethylene (PCE), a priority chemical for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act, we calculate risk-specific doses for the effects on cognitive deficits using probabilistic risk assessment approaches. Our probabilistic risk assessment shows that chronic exposure to 0.004 ppm PCE is associated with approximately 1-in-1,000 risk for a 5% reduced performance on the Wechsler Memory Scale Visual Reproduction subtest with 95% confidence. This exposure level associated with a 1-in-1000 risk for non-cancer neurocognitive deficits is lower than the current RfC for PCE of 0.0059 ppm, which is based on standard point of departure and uncertainty factor approaches for the same neurotoxic effects in occupationally exposed adults. We found that the population-level risk of cognitive deficit (indicating central nervous system dysfunction) is estimated to be greater than the cancer risk level of 1-in-100,000 at a similar chronic exposure level. The extension of toxicological endpoints to more clinically relevant endpoints, along with consideration of magnitude and severity of effect, will help in the selection of acceptable risk targets for non-cancer effects. We find that probabilistic approaches can 1) provide greater context to existing RfDs and RfCs by describing the probability of effect across a range of exposure levels including the RfD/RfC in a diverse population for a given magnitude of effect and confidence level, 2) relate effects of chemical exposures to clinical disease risk so that the resulting risk assessments can better inform decision-makers and benefit-cost analysis, and 3) better reflect the underlying biology and uncertainties of population risks.

Indexed as

ReproductionAdultHumansRisk AssessmentUncertaintyDose-response analysisHuman health risk assessmentNon-cancer riskPerchlorethylenePopulation riskProbabilisticProbabilistic risk assessmentReference valuesUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID36635712
PMCPMC9835218

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.