Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40665708›Full record

ReviewRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025

Deliberating the scientific evidence base for influenza transmission to raw milk consumers.

Margaret E Coleman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Deliberating the scientific evidence base for influenza transmission to raw milk consumers.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Margaret E ColemanColeman Scientific Consulting, Groton, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8185-1736

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transmission of influenza A H5N1, commonly known as avian influenza or bird flu, from wild birds to cows on 1073 large US dairy farms in 17 states, and from cows to 41 dairy workers in five states, has raised concerns about limited evidence for transmission routes. Factors other than scientific evidence, particularly psychological, social, cultural, and political factors influencing different worldviews, support highly polarized risk perceptions about H5N1 in dairy cows, workers, and consumers. Of particular concern is the lack of scientific evidence to support federal warnings about the hypothesis that influenza transmits by the oral route to raw milk consumers. This review focuses on experimental evidence of disease transmission from 44 H5N1 inoculation studies conducted in primates, ferrets, cows, mice, cats, and dogs. Serious errors in extrapolation are apparent in the treatment of evidence for H5N1 in the media and some journal papers that unintentionally or intentionally amplify risk. Considerations of knowledge gaps and formal methods to bridge the gaps are introduced to motivate future risk analysis and facilitate building a coherent basis of knowledge to support development of rigorous evidence-based policies and risk messaging for H5N1.

Indexed as

Influenza A Virus, H5N1 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanMilkOrthomyxoviridae InfectionsAnimalsCatsCattleDogsHumansMiceRisk AssessmentUnited Statesrisk amplificationrisk perceptionroute and host extrapolations

Identifiers

PMID40665708
PMCPMC12516677

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.