ReviewIntegrated environmental assessment and management2025
Integrating population-level effects into the regulatory assessment of endocrine disrupting substances.
Review in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Population Relevance of Endocrine-sensitive Apical Endpoints in Fish Chronic Studies Using Individual-Based Models.Environmental science & technology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population modeling, field studies, and monitoring approaches have all been proposed for assessing the relevance of adverse effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) at the population level for nontarget (wild) vertebrates, but how these approaches should be used in the regulatory hazard assessment is unclear and not detailed in the relevant European Guidance Document. A literature review focused on identifying published approaches assessing the population relevance of adverse effects from EDCs was performed, and, subsequently, 47 primary research papers were evaluated. By extracting from these sources, a novel approach was developed with guiding principles for assessing adverse effects of EDCs at the population level considering (i) choice of focal species, scenarios (and models), (ii) the individual level apical endpoints to be considered, (iii) the magnitude of effect to be imposed, (iv) for what duration effects should be imposed, (v) whether individuals repairing the damage from exposure should be included, (vi) the population-level endpoints to be considered, and (vii) what threshold to set for defining an adverse effect at this level. Recommendations for modeling and field and monitoring studies are included. Case studies are also presented to demonstrate how the proposed approach might be implemented. Although some aspects (e.g., choice of focal species, model/experimental scenario, monitoring study assessment) require further consideration, this should not prevent the use of this approach in a regulatory EDC assessment context. As such, we propose that the approach be used immediately to implement population modeling and perform field studies within this regulatory context. We envisage that consistent application of these principles will encourage regulatory developments in this critical area to provide a much needed level of clarity in the EDC assessment for all stakeholders.
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.