Cited by 479Agricultural safety and regulationsFood Safety and HygieneGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Introduction of a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach for assessment of selected microorganisms referred to EFSA - Opinion of the Scientific Committee: Introduction of a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach for assessment of selected microorganisms referred to EFSA - Opinion of the Scientifi

Open access
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)·2007·EFSA Journal

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2007.587

Cites

268 of 268 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
(EFSA), E. F. S. A.
Corresponding author
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
587
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210976272
Cited by
479
References
268
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
qualified presumption of safety, microorganisms, microbial risk assessment

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