ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2025
Comparison of model-averaging and single-distribution approaches to estimating species sensitivity distributions and hazardous concentrations for 5% of species.
Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Environmental DNA-Based Ecological Risk Assessment of PAHs in Aged Petroleum-Contaminated Soils.Toxics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Estimation of species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) and hazardous concentrations for 5% of species (HC5s) by fitting a statistical distribution to toxicity data for multiple species is essential in ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Given the challenge of selecting the appropriate statistical distribution in SSD estimation, a model-averaging approach that involves fitting multiple statistical distributions and using weighted estimates to derive HC5s is appealing. However, the effectiveness of this approach compared with SSDs based on a single statistical distribution (i.e., single-distribution approach) has not been thoroughly examined. We aimed to compare the model-averaging approach with the single-distribution approach based on log-normal, log-logistic, Burr type III, Weibull, and gamma distributions to estimate HC5s. For this comparison, we selected 35 chemicals with available toxicity data for more than 50 species, enabling the direct calculation of reference HC5 values from the 5th percentiles of the toxicity distributions. For each chemical, we examined the deviations between the reference HC5 value and HC5 estimates derived from SSDs based on toxicity data for 5-15 species subsampled from the complete dataset using model-averaging and single-distribution approaches. This subsampling simulated the typical limitations of available toxicity data. The deviations observed with the model-averaging approach were comparable with those from the single-distribution approach based on the log-normal, log-logistic, and Burr type III distributions. Although use of specific distributions often resulted in overly conservative HC5 or HC1 estimates, our results suggest that the precision of HC5/HC1 estimates would not substantially differ between the model-averaging approach and the single-distribution approach based on log-normal and log-logistic distributions. We further discuss the circumstances under which model-averaging and single-distribution approaches are better suited for estimating HC5s.
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.