Table 7.
Method/framework | Reference | Number of Classes | Class title |
---|---|---|---|
Bayesian Inference | Schleier et al. (2015) | NA | NA |
Epid-Tox | Adami et al. (2011) | 4 |
|
GRADE | Andrews et al. (2013b) | 4 | Strong Against, Weak Against, Weak For, Strong For |
Hope and Clarkson | Hope and Clarkson (2014) | 5 | Weak, Not indicated, Not indicated, Not indicated, Strong |
IARC | IARC (2006) | 5 |
|
Modified Bradford Hill | Meek et al. (2014a); OECD (2014) | 3 | Weak, Moderate, Strong |
Multi-criteria analysis | Linkov et al. (2011) | 6 | Do nothing, Institutional control, Clay capping, Mechanical dredging, Hydraulic dredging, Hot spot dredging |
NRC | NRC (2014) | 5 | Carcinogenic to humans, Likely to be carcinogenic to humans, Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential, Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential, Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans |
OHAT | OHAT (2015) | 5 | (1) Known to be a hazard to humans, (2) Presumed to be a hazard to humans, (3) Suspected to be a hazard to humans, (4) Not classifiable as a hazard to humans, or (5) Not identified as a hazard to humans |
SR–Cochrane | Higgins and Green (2011) | 4 | Very low, Low, Moderate, Strong |
SR-EFSA | EFSA (2010) | NA | NA |
SCENIHR | SCENIHR (2012) | 5 | Weighting not possible, Uncertain, Weak, Moderate, Strong |
WCRF/AICR | WCRF/AICR (2014) | 5 | Convincing/Probable/Limited - suggestive/Limited - no conclusion/Substantial effect on risk unlikely |
Note: EFSA, European Food Safety Authority; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; NA, Not applicable because the corresponding step was not addressed by the approach; NRC, U.S. National Research Council; OHAT, Office of Health Assessment and Translation; SCENIHR, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks; SR, Systematic Review; WCRF/AICR, World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research.