↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 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 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 21%
Environmental Science 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Chemistry 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,711,469
of 16,510,533 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#784
of 1,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,235
of 234,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,510,533 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 234,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them