Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical framework for considering and assessing WOE in hazard identification in areas of application at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). METHODS: Based on a review of the literature and directed requests to 63 international and national agencies, 116 relevant articles and guidance documents were selected. The WOE approaches were assessed based on three aspects: the extent of their prescriptive nature, their purpose-specific relevance, and their ease of implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-four approaches meeting the specified criteria were identified from selected reviewed documents. Most approaches satisfied one or two of the assessed considerations, but not all three. The approaches were grouped within a practical framework comprising the following four stages: (1) planning the assessment, including scoping, formulating the question, and developing the assessment method; (2) establishing lines of evidence (LOEs), including identifying and selecting studies, assessing their quality, and integrating with studies of similar type; (3) integrating the LOEs to evaluate WOE; and (4) presenting conclusions. DISCUSSION: Based on the review, considerations for selecting methods for a wide range of applications are proposed. Priority areas for further development are identified. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.258 | 0.595 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.082 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".