Cumulative Exposure Assessment of Triazole Pesticides

In the EFSA opinion on identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from pesticides to human health a tiered approach for cumulative risk assessment has been proposed. The first tier is a deterministic approach using average and large portion consumption statistics. The higher tiers include probabilistic exposure assessment and Benchmark Dose (BMD) modeling. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and applicability of a higher tier assessment of cumulative exposure using probabilistic modeling in combination with the relative potency factor (RPF) approach. The RPFs are used to weigh the toxicity of each pesticide relative to the toxicity of a chosen index compound (pesticide). In this report the authors address both the short-term and long-term cumulative exposure to triazoles using different statistical model

Gaitography on lower-limb amputees:Repeatability and between-methods agreement

Background: Gaitography is gait parametrization from center-of-pressure trajectories of walking on an instrumented treadmill. Gaitograms may be useful for prosthetic gait analyses, as they can be rapidly and unobtrusively collected over multiple gait cycles without constraining foot placement. However, its reliability must still be established for prosthetic gait. Objectives: To evaluate (a) within-method test–retest repeatability and (b) between-methods agreement for temporal gait events (foot contact, foot off) and gait characteristics (e.g. step times, single-support duration). Study design: Cohort study with repeated measurements. Methods: Ten male proficient prosthetic walkers with a unilateral trans-femoral or trans-tibial amputation were equipped with a pressure-insole system and were invited to walk on separate days on an instrumented treadmill. Results: We found better between-methods reproducibility than within-method repeatability in temporal gait characteristics. Step times, stride times, and foot-contact events matched well between the two methods. In contrast, insole-based foot-off events were detected one-to-two samples earlier. Likewise, a similar bias was observed for temporal gait characteristics that incorporated foot-off events. Conclusion: Notwithstanding small systematic biases, the good between-methods agreement indicates that temporal gait characteristics may be determined interchangeably with gaitograms and insoles in persons with a prosthesis. However, the relatively poorer test–retest repeatability hinders longitudinal assessments with either method. Clinical relevance: Clinical practice could potentially benefit from gaitography as an efficient, unobtrusive, easy to use, automatized, and patient-friendly means to objectively parametrize prosthetic gait, with immediate availability of test results allowing for prompt clinical decision-making. Temporal gait parameters demonstrate good between-methods agreement, but poorer within-method repeatability hinders detecting prosthetic gait changes