ReviewToxicology reports2024
Fish consumption benefits and PFAS risks: Epidemiology and public health recommendations.
Review in Toxicology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in commercially important marine species of fish and shellfish from Alaska and implications for human exposure.Toxicology reports · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic predictors of PFAS exposure among a combined sample of U.S. pregnant women: an Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) public-use dataset analysis.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Managing PFAS in Sewage Sludge: Exposure Pathways, Impacts, and Treatment Innovations.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- Exploring the Complexities of Seafood: From Benefits to Contaminants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finfish and shellfish intake (collectively referred to as fish) has been associated with health benefits, although fish often have chemical contaminants that are separately associated with health risks. The presence of chemical contaminants, however, does not inherently pose a health risk and optimizing the benefits is desirable for individual and population health. Reference doses (RfDs) and other comparison values that estimate contaminant or pollutant safety thresholds typically do not account for the benefits of the foods that carry them (e.g., fish, eggs, fruit, vegetables). Rather, these numbers are typically applied uniformly for various media such as food, soil, and water. This paper summarizes principal epidemiology studies on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-associated noncancer health indicators used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop RfDs for PFAS and compares these with the same health outcomes associated with seafood intake. Moreover, it frames these findings in relation to varying human PFAS exposures, fish intake amount, and fish type when the information is available. Further, it presents brief overviews of both general population temporal PFAS exposure trends and PFAS fish contaminant data in the United States. Finally, it discusses approaches that risk assessors and policy makers can consider in developing their fish consumption recommendations in relation to PFAS. In brief, epidemiology studies show that the benefits of fish intake generally counter the risks of PFAS exposure based on four noncancer health endpoints that EPA identified as having the greatest strength of evidence for PFAS health effects.
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.