Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37342506›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023

Application of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques and decision support framework for informing select agent designation for agricultural animal pathogens.

Segaran P Pillai, Todd West, Kevin Anderson, Julia A Fruetel, Carrie McNeil, Patricia Hernandez, Cameron Ball, Nataly Beck, Stephen A Morse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Trimming tiers - Motivations and means for de-risking select agents.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Segaran P PillaiOffice of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Todd WestSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Kevin AndersonScience and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, United States.
Julia A FruetelSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Carrie McNeilSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Patricia HernandezSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Cameron BallSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Nataly BeckSandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore, CA, United States.
Stephen A MorseCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Division of Agricultural Select Agents and Toxins (DASAT) established a list of biological agents and toxins (Select Agent List) that potentially threaten agricultural health and safety, the procedures governing the transfer of those agents, and training requirements for entities working with them. Every 2 years the USDA DASAT reviews the Select Agent List, using subject matter experts (SMEs) to perform an assessment and rank the agents. To assist the USDA DASAT biennial review process, we explored the applicability of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques and a Decision Support Framework (DSF) in a logic tree format to identify pathogens for consideration as select agents, applying the approach broadly to include non-select agents to evaluate its robustness and generality. We conducted a literature review of 41 pathogens against 21 criteria for assessing agricultural threat, economic impact, and bioterrorism risk and documented the findings to support this assessment. The most prominent data gaps were those for aerosol stability and animal infectious dose by inhalation and ingestion routes. Technical review of published data and associated scoring recommendations by pathogen-specific SMEs was found to be critical for accuracy, particularly for pathogens with very few known cases, or where proxy data (e.g., from animal models or similar organisms) were used to address data gaps. The MCDA analysis supported the intuitive sense that select agents should rank high on the relative risk scale when considering agricultural health consequences of a bioterrorism attack. However, comparing select agents with non-select agents indicated that there was not a clean break in scores to suggest thresholds for designating select agents, requiring subject matter expertise collectively to establish which analytical results were in good agreement to support the intended purpose in designating select agents. The DSF utilized a logic tree approach to identify pathogens that are of sufficiently low concern that they can be ruled out from consideration as a select agent. In contrast to the MCDA approach, the DSF rules out a pathogen if it fails to meet even one criteria threshold. Both the MCDA and DSF approaches arrived at similar conclusions, suggesting the value of employing the two analytical approaches to add robustness for decision making.

Indexed as

agriculture animal pathogendecision support frameworkmulti-criteria decision analysisrisk assessment toolselect agent designation

Identifiers

PMID37342506
PMCPMC10278572

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.