ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Designing Optimal Aflatoxin Monitoring Schemes in the Dairy Supply Chain.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Designing effective food safety monitoring schemes is a complex task involving multiple, often conflicting, criteria. This study applied Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to evaluate and identify optimal aflatoxin monitoring schemes along a Dutch dairy supply chain-a critical context where aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) contamination in feed can lead to aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in milk, potentially posing public health concerns and economic losses. Monitoring schemes differed in detection intensity at feed mills and dairy farms, defined as the probability of identifying contaminated batches (low: 50%, medium: 80%, high: 90%) and determined by the number of monitoring batches and corresponding sample sizes used for AFB1/AFM1 sampling and analysis. Performance scores for each monitoring scheme were derived from quantitative models, scientific evidence, and expert consultation, while preference weights for criteria were elicited separately from representatives of the feed industry, dairy industry, and from a combined supply chain perspective. Results revealed that all stakeholder groups prioritized public health, but differed in their weighting of monitoring costs, production losses, customer trust, and implementation complexity. The feed industry preferred high-intensity detection at both control points, while the dairy industry preferred medium-intensity at feed mills and high-intensity at farms. Overall, the MCDA framework facilitated a transparent and evidence-based approach to identify an optimal monitoring scheme, highlighting the importance of stakeholder engagement in designing programs that are not only scientifically robust but also socially responsive and aligned with the WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety and the Sustainable Development Goals.
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.