ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026
Risk Science in Practice: A Framework for Gauging Risk Principles in Domain-Specific Discourse.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. 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.
- Risk Science in Practice: A Framework for Gauging Risk Principles in Domain-Specific Discourse.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk science is increasingly interwoven across various domains, aiming to be both generalizable and domain-specific to build consistency and applicability across risk applications. However, those risk discussions, such as in materials that aim to share risk-related information with stakeholders, may have varying levels of alignment with risk science. In this paper, we present a framework for comparing and broadly understanding how generalizable risk concepts and risk study quality criteria are addressed in various domain-specific risk discussions that are not intended to be formal risk studies, such as materials used to inform policymakers, investor reports, and reports for regulatory compliance. While the framework is supported by criteria developed for risk study quality in formal risk studies, we discuss how to apply the framework using text analysis methodologies and technologies. The results of the framework then identify areas in which risk discussions do not sufficiently align with risk science principles and identify areas in which the use of risk science for these discussions can be improved. We then develop key findings related to features in mapping risk concepts to domain-specific risk discussions. This leads to opportunities to build consistency in risk-related discourse across various domain areas.
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.