FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2029182402> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2029182402 abstract "IN Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses, (1) authors contend that toxicological significance of alleged endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) cannot be assessed using traditional monotonic threshold dose-response curve. In contrast, they suggest that EDCs can cause adverse human biological effects at low, regulatory-approved dose levels. Although this article only focuses on biological effects per se and not on whether effect is adverse or not, they contend that it is improper to extrapolate that harmful effects cannot occur at environmentally relevant, regulatory-approved low-dose levels just because no effects are seen at much higher regulatory-accepted no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). Plaintiffs' attorneys and their retained experts will point to Vandenberg paper in support of position that EDC at issue proximately caused their plaintiff's cancer, reproductive or developmental problem, even when plaintiff only was exposed to alleged EDC at regulatory-approved safe level. Through a weight-of-the-evidence methodology, plaintiffs' experts may attempt to use some sort of nonmonotonic, non-threshold dose-response curve to opine that health condition at issue generally and specifically was caused by exposure to very low doses of alleged EDC at regulatory approved levels. Accordingly, defendants must mount a convincing Daubert/Frye argument to defeat this theory. This article demonstrates how-to construct a successful Daubert/Frye challenge against an expert's attempted use of a nonmonotonic, non-threshold dose-response curve to support an adverse causation opinion about an alleged EDC. I. Dose-Response Curves There are three dose-response curves that come into play in any personal injury environmental toxic tort case. First, traditional monotonic, nonlinear threshold dose-response curve provides that dose has to reach a recognized threshold level before chemical likely will have any adverse human health consequences. Once chemical exerts an adverse effect, adverse effect will continue to worsen as dose increases. The generally recognized phrase the dose makes poison is associated with a monotonic, nonlinear dose-response curve. Second, monotonic, linear non-threshold dose-response curve states that a chemical can have an adverse human health effect at any dose level. Thus, there is no safe dose level and no threshold dose level. As such, exposure to even molecule of chemical at issue puts an individual at risk for development of an adverse health condition. This concept is referred to as one hit theory because allegedly just dose of chemical at any level can start disease process. Third, nonmonotonic, non-threshold dose-response curve, suggested by Vandenberg article as being particularly applicable to EDCs, provides that a chemical can have effects at regulatory approved low dose levels; have no effects at moderately higher dose levels and have effects at highest dose levels. A nonmonotonic, non-threshold dose-response curve is described as either Ushaped or inverted U-shaped. Allowing a plaintiff's expert to opine that chemical on trial should be analyzed through use of a nonmonotonic, non-threshold dose-response curve would present significant problems for a defendant. Specifically, defendant's assertion of common regulatory compliance defense that plaintiffs dose level never exceeded applicable regulatory-acceptable safe dose level would be seriously questioned and could be disregarded completely by fact finder. Moreover, plaintiff would be able to raise a significant question in jurors' minds as to whether defendant was negligent for only testing alleged EDC at regulatory-accepted high levels instead of also including in its test protocol environmentally relevant low dose levels. …" @default.
• W2029182402 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2029182402 creator A5021091909 @default.
• W2029182402 creator A5079897542 @default.
• W2029182402 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2029182402 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2029182402 title "The Emerging Battlefield: Should the Use of a Nonmonotonic, Non-Threshold Dose-Response Curve for Alleged Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Survive aDaubert/FryeChallenge?" @default.
• W2029182402 doi "https://doi.org/10.12690/0895-0016-80.1.45" @default.
• W2029182402 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2029182402 type Work @default.
• W2029182402 sameAs 2029182402 @default.
• W2029182402 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2029182402 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2029182402 hasAuthorship W2029182402A5021091909 @default.
• W2029182402 hasAuthorship W2029182402A5079897542 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C186256576 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C2776151105 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConcept C98274493 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C126322002 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C15744967 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C166151441 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C17744445 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C186256576 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C197934379 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C199539241 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C2776151105 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C71924100 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C97460637 @default.
• W2029182402 hasConceptScore W2029182402C98274493 @default.
• W2029182402 hasLocation W20291824021 @default.
• W2029182402 hasOpenAccess W2029182402 @default.
• W2029182402 hasPrimaryLocation W20291824021 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W1965944882 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2002766713 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2006191818 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2010594241 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2029234084 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2036141401 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2051653908 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2055218627 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2130202236 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W21314887 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2237610847 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2325920497 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2346492536 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2393529476 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2401691570 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2415305882 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2482633840 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2754104810 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W2898228009 @default.
• W2029182402 hasRelatedWork W3088847080 @default.
• W2029182402 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2029182402 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2029182402 magId "2029182402" @default.
• W2029182402 workType "article" @default.