ArticleChina CDC weekly2026
Environmental Mixture-Health Associations: Current Analytical Practice and Reporting Recommendations.
Article in China CDC weekly, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Analytical decisions for environmental mixture exposure remain under-standardized. The aim was to outline current analytical practice across studies and propose a reporting checklist. Methods: An empirical methodological review was conducted for original environmental mixture-exposure studies using Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR), weighted quantile sum (WQS), or quantile-based g-computation (QGC), published in four high-impact journals between 2021 and 2025 for exposure types, sample size, and statistical methods. A three-stage analytical framework was outlined. Summaries were analyzed using R software, and descriptive statistics were used to characterize methodological usage and preferences. Results: Of the 97 studies, the median sample size was 729 [interquartile range (IQR): 396-1,992], and the median number of exposures analyzed was 9 (IQR: 6-15). Most studies focused on internal exposures 86/97 (88.7%); 58/86 (67.4%) reported an explicit detection-rate threshold. Feature reduction was performed in 25/97 studies (25.8%). BKMR, WQS, and QGC were used in 78/97 (80.4%), 35/97 (36.1%), and 30/97 (30.9%) studies, respectively. Overall, 41/97 studies (42.3%) used at least two methods. Post-hoc analyses were common, with 87/97 (89.7%) studies assessing variable importance, 78/97 (80.4%) examining interactions, and 87/97 (89.7%) assessing nonlinearity. Common reporting gaps included incomplete model-parameter specification, insufficient documentation of preprocessing decisions, and limited justification for mixture-method selection. Conclusion: Among published studies, analytical choices were heterogeneous, and key reporting details were incomplete. Justification of method choice, transparent documentation of preprocessing decisions, and standardized reporting are required to improve reproducibility and interpretability. The checklist supports planning and reporting environmental mixture analyses, and provides transparency in analytical decisions, model specifications, and post-hoc interpretations.
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.