Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37635726›Full record

ArticleGlobal epidemiology2021

Environmental epidemiology and risk assessment: Exploring a path to increased confidence in public health decision-making.

Sandrine E Déglin, Connie L Chen, David J Miller, R Jeffrey Lewis, Ellen T Chang, Ali K Hamade, Heidi S Erickson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Systematic literature review of the epidemiology of glyphosate and neurological outcomes.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Increasing the utility of epidemiologic studies as key evidence in chemical risk assessment.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Sandrine E DéglinHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Connie L ChenHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
David J MillerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States of America.
R Jeffrey LewisExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Annandale, NJ, United States of America.
Ellen T ChangCenter for Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, United States of America.
Ali K HamadeOregon Health Authority, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Heidi S EricksonHealth & Medical, Chevron Services Company (a division of Chevron USA Inc.), Houston, TX, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Throughout history, environmental epidemiology has proven crucial to identify certain threats to human health and to provide a basis for the development of life-saving public health policies. However, epidemiologists are facing challenges when studying tenuous threats such as environmental exposure to chemicals, whose association with adverse health effects may be difficult to characterize. As a result, epidemiological data can seldom be fully leveraged for quantitative risk assessment and decision-making. Despite two decades of efforts to improve a more systematic integration of human data to evaluate human health risks, assessors still heavily rely on animal data to do so, while epidemiology plays more of a secondary role. Although the need for more and better collaboration between risk assessors and epidemiologists is widely recognized, both fields tend to remain siloed. In 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute initiated a project engaging the epidemiology, exposure science, and regulatory communities with tripartite representation from regulators, industry, and academia in a dialogue on the use of environmental epidemiology for regulatory decision-making. Several focus groups attended by epidemiology, exposure science, and risk assessment experts were organized to explore incentives and barriers to collaboration, to ultimately bridge the gap between the various disciplines, and to realize the full potential of epidemiological data in risk assessment. Various ideas that have emerged from these meetings could help ensure the better integration of epidemiological data in quantitative risk assessment and contribute to building confidence in a robust and science-based regulatory decision-making process.

Indexed as

Decision-makingEnvironmental epidemiologyPublic healthRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID37635726
PMCPMC10445995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.