The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Management of left‐censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical substances
Open accessAbstract
Within the general framework of chemical risk assessment, a difficult step in dietary exposure assessment is the handling of concentration data reported to be below the limit of detection (LOD). These data are known as non-detects and the resulting distribution of occurrence values is left-censored. Handling left-censored data represents a challenge for EFSA?s collection and statistical analysis of chemical occurrence data. EFSA has so far treated left-censored data with widely used substitution methods recommended by international organisations. The appropriateness of this approach has a natural limitation in the computation of percentiles and in the application of statistical techniques. An EFSA working group was established to estimate the accuracy of methods currently used and to propose recommendations for more advanced alternative statistical approaches. Based on a simulation study and on analyses of real data, an ad hoc evaluation was carried out to assess the performance of different statistical methods to handle non-detects, i.e. parametric Maximum likelihood (ML) models, the log-probit regression method and the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Results showed that the number of samples had a relatively limited impact on the accuracy and precision of estimates, but the degree of censoring had a large effect. When analysing a complex set of data, it was also shown that it is essential to identify possible sources of heterogeneity in a dataset, such as country of sample collection/origin, food group, laboratory, etc. Statistical analyses should either be conducted separately from these factors, or, to explicitly account for this heterogeneity, fixed/random effect ML models could be used. Based on a minimum number of available samples and to different values of censoring percentages, the working group outlined recommendations, including the use of appropriate statistical tests, to handle left-censored distributions of chemical contaminant data in the context of exposure assessment.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Schwarz, G. (1978) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136 · Cited by 47,033
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
On Information and Sufficiency
Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · Cited by 20,193
On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics
Fisher, R. A. (1922) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character · doi:10.1098/rsta.1922.0009 · Cited by 4,039
Estimation of Average Concentration in the Presence of Nondetectable Values
Hornung, R. W., & Reed, L. D. (1990) · Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · doi:10.1080/1047322x.1990.10389587 · Cited by 3,495
Scientific Opinion on Arsenic in Food
(CONTAM), E. P. O. C. I. T. F. C. (2009) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1351 · Cited by 1,128
Principles of environmental analysis
Keith, L. H., Crummett, W., Deegan, J., Libby, R. A., Taylor, J. K., & Wentler, G. (1983) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac00264a003 · Cited by 752
A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures
Mulhausen, J., & Damiano, J. (1998) · Cited by 361
Cited by
Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food
Panel), E. P. O. C. I. T. F. C. (. C., Schrenk, D., Bignami, M., Bodin, L., Chipman, J. K., del Mazo, J., Grasl‐Kraupp, B., Hogstrand, C., Hoogenboom, L. (., Leblanc, J., et al. (2020) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223 · Cited by 989
Authority, E. G. F. T. C. O. S. R. E. F. S. (2010) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637 · Cited by 693
Self-citationEFSA Scientific Committee, More, S. J., Bampidis, V., Benford, D., Bennekou, S. H., Bragard, C., Halldorsson, T. I., Hernández‐Jerez, A. F., Koutsoumanis, K., Naegeli, H., et al. (2019) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5634 · Cited by 574
Risks for animal health related to the presence of zearalenone and its modified forms in feed
(CONTAM), E. P. O. C. I. T. F. C., Knutsen, H., Alexander, J., Barregård, L., Bignami, M., Brüschweiler, B., Ceccatelli, S., Cottrill, B., Dinovi, M., Edler, L., et al. (2017) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4851 · Cited by 292
Re‐evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as food additives
(ANS), E. P. O. F. A. A. N. S. A. T. F., Mortensen, A., Aguilar, F., Crebelli, R., Di Domenico, A., Dusemund, B., Frutos, M. J., Galtier, P., Gott, D., Gundert‐Remy, U., et al. (2017) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4787 · Cited by 143
Metadata
- Authors
- Authority, E. F. S.
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4210985950
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 17.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Management of left‐censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical substances. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1557
- The paper
- Authority, E. F. S. (2010). Management of left‐censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical substances. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1557
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.