Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites

Cedergreen, Nina, Christensen, Anne M, Kamper, Anja, Kudsk, Per, Mathiassen, Solvejg K, Streibig, Jens C, Sørensen, Helle·2008·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

From a theoretical point of view, it has often been argued that the model of independent action (IA) is the most correct reference model to use for predicting the joint effect of mixtures of chemicals with different molecular target sites. The theory of IA, however, relies on a number of assumptions that are rarely fulfilled in practice. It has even been argued that, theoretically, the concentration addition (CA) model could be just as correct. In the present study, we tested the accuracy of both IA and CA in describing binary dose-response surfaces of chemicals with different molecular targets using statistical software. We compared the two models to determine which best describes data for 158 data sets. The data sets represented 98 different mixtures of, primarily, pesticides and pharmaceuticals tested on one or several of seven test systems containing one of the following: Vibrio fischeri, activated sludge microorganisms, Daphnia magna, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Lemna minor, Tripleurospermum inodorum, or Stellaria media. The analyses showed that approximately 20% of the mixtures were adequately predicted only by IA, 10% were adequately predicted only by CA, and both models could predict the outcome of another 20% of the experiment. Half of the experiments could not be correctly described with either of the two models. When quantifying the maximal difference between modeled synergy or antagonism and the reference model predictions at a 50% effect concentration, neither of the models proved significantly better than the other. Thus, neither model can be selected over the other on the basis of accuracy alone.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1897/07-474.1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Cedergreen, N., Christensen, A. M., Kamper, A., Kudsk, P., Mathiassen, S. K., Streibig, J. C., & Sørensen, H.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
1621-1632
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2084455775
Cited by
334
References
1
FWCI
7.99
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: A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/07-474.1
The paper
Cedergreen, N., Christensen, A. M., Kamper, A., Kudsk, P., Mathiassen, S. K., Streibig, J. C., & Sørensen, H. (2008). A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/07-474.1

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.