Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41304477›Full record

ArticleToxics2025

Variability Between Datasets and Statistical Approaches-Rethinking Estimation of Default Dermal Absorption Values for Risk Assessment.

Veronika Städele, Sabine Martin, Korinna Wend

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Veronika StädeleDepartment Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5381-2198
Sabine MartinDepartment Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Korinna WendDepartment Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-7611-238X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

active substanceBayesianexposureguidancein vitrolinear modelMCMCglmmPPPprediction interval

Identifiers

PMID41304477
PMCPMC12656691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.