Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39391711›Full record

ReviewToxicology reports2024

Fish consumption benefits and PFAS risks: Epidemiology and public health recommendations.

Ali Hamade

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

1 author.

Ali HamadeOregon Health Authority, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenefitConsumptionEpidemiologyFishPFASRiskSeafoodToxicology

Identifiers

PMID39391711
PMCPMC11465044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.