ArticleToxics2025
Variability Between Datasets and Statistical Approaches-Rethinking Estimation of Default Dermal Absorption Values for Risk Assessment.
Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In risk assessment, deriving dermal absorption values is essential for evaluating plant protection products. Applicants submit study data, which authorities assess during the authorisation process. If no data are provided, default values from the European Food Safety Authority 2017 Guidance on dermal absorption (EFSA GD2017) apply. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment compiled an updated dermal absorption dataset of 356 more recent human in vitro studies evaluated under to the newest guidance. We applied the same empirical and modelling approaches used to derive default values for concentrates (commercially available product concentrations) and dilutions in different formulation type categories in EFSA GD2017 to the new dataset and compared the resulting values. We also assessed the impact of applying the alternative definition of 'concentrate' (>50 g/L) according to SCoPAFF. Default values obtained by analysing the new dataset were considerably lower than current default values, particularly for solids applied in dilutions. The alternative definition of 'concentrate' did not have a large impact on default values. Our results suggest that a revision of the default values based on newer studies evaluated under the most current guidance may be warranted.
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.