The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improved empirical models describing hormesis
Abstract
During the past two decades, the phenomenon of hormesis has gained increased recognition. To promote research in hormesis, a soudund statistical quantification of important parameters, such as the level and significance of the increase in response and the range of concentration where it occurs, is strongly needed. Here, we present an improved statistical model to describe hormetic dose—response curves and test for the presence of hormesis. Using the delta method and freely available software, any percentage effect dose or concentration can be derived with its associated standard errors. Likewise, the maximal response can be extracted and the growth stimulation calculated. The new model was tested on macrophyte data from multiple-species experiments and on laboratory data of Lemna minor. For the 51 curves tested, significant hormesis was detected in 18 curves, and for another 17 curves, the hormesis model described that data better than the logistic model did. The increase in response ranged from 5 to 109%. The growth stimulation occurred at an average dose somewhere between zero and concentrations corresponding to approximately 20 to 25% of the median effective concentration (EC50). Testing the same data with the hormesis model proposed by Brain and Cousens in 1989, we found no significant hormesis. Consequently, the new model is shown to be far more robust than previous models, both in terms of variation in data and in terms of describing hormetic effects ranging from small effects of a 10% increase in response up to effects of an almost 100% increase in response.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vaart, A. W. V. D. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802256 · Cited by 4,159
Cited by
Ritz, C., & Streibig, J. C. (2005) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v012.i05 · Cited by 1,438
Self-citationWeaver, K. D., Kim, H. J., Sun, J., MacFarlane, D. R., & Elliott, G. D. (2010) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/b918726j · Cited by 318
Glyphosate applied at low doses can stimulate plant growth
Velini, E. D., Alves, E., Godoy, M. C., Meschede, D. K., Souza, R. T., & Duke, S. O. (2008) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.1562 · Cited by 269
The role of defensible space for residential structure protection during wildfires
Syphard, A. D., Brennan, T. J., & Keeley, J. E. (2014) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf13158 · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Authors
- Cedergreen, N., Ritz, C., & Streibig, J. C.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3166-3172
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2078782423
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improved empirical models describing hormesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/05-014r.1
- The paper
- Cedergreen, N., Ritz, C., & Streibig, J. C. (2005). Improved empirical models describing hormesis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/05-014r.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.