Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38952724›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Validating self-reported Toxic Release Inventory data using Benford's Law: investigating toxic chemical release hazards in floodplains.

Kristin Osiecki, Syed Hussaini, Apostolis Sambanis, Logan Quinsey, Chloe Liew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Kristin OsieckiCenter for Learning Innovation, University of Minnesota Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Syed HussainiEmergency Management and Resilience Planning Graduate Certificate Program, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Apostolis SambanisEmergency Management and Resilience Planning Graduate Certificate Program, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Logan QuinseyEmergency Management and Resilience Planning Graduate Certificate Program, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Chloe LiewCenter for Learning Innovation, University of Minnesota Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Acute and long-term health impacts from flooding related toxic chemical releases are a significant local health concern and can disproportionately impact communities with vulnerable populations; reliable release data are needed to quantify this hazard. Methods: In this paper, we analyze US Federal Emergency Management Agency designated floodplain data and US Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data to determine if geographically manipulated databases adhere to Benford's Law. Results: We investigated multiple variants and discovered pollution releases adhere to Benford's Law and tests which thereby validates the self-reported toxic release dataset. Discussion: We find that Benford's Law applies to self-reported toxic chemical release and disposal data, indicating a lack of widespread data errors or manipulation.

Indexed as

Chemical Hazard ReleaseFloodsSelf ReportData AccuracyHumansReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyBenford's Lawenvironmental justiceflood riskToxic Release Inventoryvulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID38952724
PMCPMC11215073

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.