ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Review of the Terminology, Approaches, and Formulations Used in the Guidelines on Quantitative Risk Assessment of Chemical Hazards in Food.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corporate Resonance of Food Safety Risk: A Space-Time Perspective.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Occurrence of Melamine and Cyanuric Acid in Breast Milk: A Risk Assessment for Infants Aged 0-6 Months.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Advances in Resistant Starch Research from Agro-Industrial Waste: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Trends.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A tiered next-generation risk assessment framework integrating toxicokinetics and NAM-based toxicodynamics: "proof of concept" case study using pyrethroids.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Chemical Food Safety in Europe Under the Spotlight: Principles, Regulatory Framework and Roadmap for Future Directions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews the published terminology, mathematical models, and the possible approaches used to characterise the risk of foodborne chemical hazards, particularly pesticides, metals, mycotoxins, acrylamide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The results confirmed the wide variability of the nomenclature used, e.g., 28 different ways of referencing exposure, 13 of cancer risk, or 9 of slope factor. On the other hand, a total of 16 equations were identified to formulate all the risk characterisation parameters of interest. Therefore, the present study proposes a terminology and formulation for some risk characterisation parameters based on the guidelines of international organisations and the literature review. The mathematical model used for non-genotoxic hazards is a ratio in all cases. However, the authors used the probability of cancer or different ratios, such as the margin of exposure (MOE) for genotoxic hazards. For each effect studied per hazard, the non-genotoxic effect was mostly studied in pesticides (79.73%), the genotoxic effect was mostly studied in PAHs (71.15%), and both effects were mainly studied in metals (59.4%). The authors of the works reviewed generally opted for a deterministic approach, although most of those who assessed the risk for mycotoxins or the ratio and risk for acrylamide used the probabilistic approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.