Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 580

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 access
European Food Safety Authority·2010·EFSA Journal

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1557

Cites

25 of 25 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 25 references

Cited by

See all 580

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.