↓ Skip to main content

Assessing dose–response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing dose–response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity
Published in
Environmental Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0029-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Thomas Zoeller, Laura N Vandenberg

Abstract

The fundamental principle in regulatory toxicology is that all chemicals are toxic and that the severity of effect is proportional to the exposure level. An ancillary assumption is that there are no effects at exposures below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), either because no effects exist or because they are not statistically resolvable, implying that they would not be adverse. Chemicals that interfere with hormones violate these principles in two important ways: dose-response relationships can be non-monotonic, which have been reported in hundreds of studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs); and effects are often observed below the LOAEL, including all environmental epidemiological studies examining EDCs. In recognition of the importance of this issue, Lagarde et al. have published the first proposal to qualitatively assess non-monotonic dose response (NMDR) relationships for use in risk assessments. Their proposal represents a significant step forward in the evaluation of complex datasets for use in risk assessments. Here, we comment on three elements of the Lagarde proposal that we feel need to be assessed more critically and present our arguments: 1) the use of Klimisch scores to evaluate study quality, 2) the concept of evaluating study quality without topical experts' knowledge and opinions, and 3) the requirement of establishing the biological plausibility of an NMDR before consideration for use in risk assessment. We present evidence-based logical arguments that 1) the use of the Klimisch score should be abandoned for assessing study quality; 2) evaluating study quality requires experts in the specific field; and 3) an understanding of mechanisms should not be required to accept observable, statistically valid phenomena. It is our hope to contribute to the important and ongoing debate about the impact of NMDRs on risk assessment with positive suggestions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Chemistry 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,726,357
of 23,978,283 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#655
of 1,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,538
of 267,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,283 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.