A Comprehensive Guide to Systematic Review Methods in Ecotoxicology: From Foundations to Advanced Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to conducting systematic reviews in ecotoxicology, a field dedicated to understanding the effects of toxic chemicals on populations, communities, and ecosystems. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and environmental risk assessors, it covers the entire process from formulating a structured research question to interpreting and applying findings. The scope includes foundational principles adapted from healthcare, practical methodological steps for searching and appraising diverse ecotoxicological studies, strategies to overcome common challenges like heterogeneous data, and an exploration of cutting-edge digital tools and validation frameworks. This resource aims to enhance the rigor, transparency, and impact of evidence synthesis in environmental science.

Systematic Reviews in Ecotoxicology: Establishing the Framework for Robust Evidence Synthesis

Within ecotoxicology, the ability to accurately synthesize evidence regarding the effects of environmental contaminants is paramount for robust risk assessments and regulatory decisions. The methodologies employed for evidence synthesis—typically either traditional literature reviews or systematic reviews—differ profoundly in their rigor, objectivity, and reliability. A traditional literature review often provides a general overview of a topic, but its narrative approach can be susceptible to selection and confirmation bias, as it does not usually apply rigorous, pre-specified methods [1] [2]. In contrast, a systematic review is a scholarly method that uses explicit, pre-specified plans to minimize bias, systematically identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant empirical evidence on a specific, focused research question [3]. This application note details the key distinctions between these approaches and provides a structured protocol for conducting systematic reviews within ecotoxicological research.

Core Differences: Systematic vs. Traditional Literature Reviews

The fundamental differences between these two review types lie in their goals, methodology, and resultant output. The table below provides a structured comparison.

Table 1: A Comparative Overview of Traditional Literature Reviews and Systematic Reviews

Feature	Traditional (Narrative) Literature Review	Systematic Review
Review Question	Broad, descriptive, provides background or context [1] [4].	Specific, focused, often based on a framework like PICO/PECO to answer a clinical or evidence-based question [1] [2].
Planning & Protocol	Less formal planning; a predefined protocol is typically absent [2].	Extensive planning with a pre-specified, registered protocol defining the methods before starting [1] [5].
Search Strategy	Search may not be comprehensive or exhaustive; often limited to specific databases [2].	A highly sensitive, exhaustive search across multiple databases and grey literature, with a documented, reproducible strategy [1] [2].
Study Selection	Criteria not always explicit; selection can be subjective and prone to bias [2].	Uses explicit, pre-defined eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion); typically involves dual independent review to minimize bias [1] [3].
Quality Assessment	Critical appraisal of individual studies is not always performed [2].	Rigorous critical appraisal of the validity and risk of bias of each included study is a mandatory step [3] [2].
Evidence Synthesis	Typically a narrative, qualitative summary and discussion [1] [2].	Systematic presentation, often involving qualitative synthesis and potentially a quantitative meta-analysis [1] [3].
Results & Conclusions	Conclusions may be influenced by the author's views and are not always directly tied to all available evidence [1].	Results are based directly on the evidence; conclusions are structured, and the certainty of the evidence is often graded (e.g., using GRADE) [2] [6].
Primary Objective	To provide context, demonstrate understanding, or introduce new research [1].	To produce an unbiased, reliable summary of evidence to inform decision-making [2].

For ecotoxicology, the PICO framework is often adapted to PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome), which is specifically designed for environmental questions, such as evaluating the effect of a specific chemical (Exposure) on a particular species (Population) compared to a control (Comparator) for a defined endpoint like survival or reproduction (Outcome) [5].

Experimental Protocol: Conducting a Systematic Review

The following section provides a detailed, step-by-step protocol for conducting a high-quality systematic review, adaptable to ecotoxicological research.

Phase 1: Planning and Protocol Development

• Formulate the Review Question: Define a focused, answerable research question. The PECO framework is highly recommended for ecotoxicology.
  • Example PECO Question: "What is the effect of glyphosate-based herbicides [Exposure] on the larval development of Xenopus laevis [Population] compared to untreated controls [Comparator] on the outcomes of mortality and malformation rate [Outcome]?"
• Develop & Register the Protocol: Create a detailed research plan that specifies every stage of the review process. This protocol should be registered on a platform like PROSPERO to reduce duplication and bias [2]. The protocol must include:
  • Background and objectives.
  • Explicit PECO criteria.
  • A comprehensive search strategy (databases, search terms, limits).
  • Data extraction and management plans.
  • Methods for risk of bias assessment and data synthesis.

Phase 2: Evidence Identification

• Search Strategy: Develop a sensitive search strategy to maximize recall.
  • Databases: Search multiple relevant databases (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Environment Complete, TOXLINE).
  • Search Terms: Identify key concepts from the PECO question. Use both free-text terms and controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH, Emtree) specific to each database. Combine terms using Boolean operators (AND, OR) [2].
  • Grey Literature: Include searches of governmental reports, dissertations, conference proceedings, and pre-print servers to mitigate publication bias [2].
• Study Selection:
  • Use reference management software to deduplicate records.
  • Screen titles and abstracts against the pre-defined eligibility criteria.
  • Retrieve and assess the full text of potentially relevant studies.
  • This process should be performed by at least two independent reviewers to ensure reliability. Disagreements are resolved through consensus or a third reviewer [3].

The workflow for the evidence identification and synthesis phases is a critical path that ensures methodological rigor.

Phase 3: Evidence Evaluation and Synthesis

• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from included studies into a standardized form. Data points typically include:
  • Study identifiers and characteristics (author, year, location).
  • PECO elements (population details, exposure regimen, comparator, outcomes measured).
  • Key results (e.g., mean, standard deviation, sample size, effect size estimates).
  • Data extraction should also be performed in duplicate to prevent errors [3].
• Risk of Bias Assessment: Critically appraise the methodological quality of each included study using an appropriate, validated tool. For animal and ecotoxicological studies, tools like SYRCLE's risk of bias tool or the ECOTOXicology knowledgebase guidance are relevant [5]. This step is also conducted by two independent reviewers.
• Data Synthesis:
  • Qualitative Synthesis: Summarize the findings in a narrative form, often structured around the outcomes and the strength of the evidence.
  • Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis): If the studies are sufficiently homogeneous, statistically combine the results to produce an overall summary effect estimate. This involves using software (e.g., RevMan) to generate forest plots and statistical measures [3].
• Summary of Findings Table: Create a clear, transparent table summarizing the main results. This table should include, for each critical outcome, the number of studies, the overall certainty of the evidence (e.g., using the GRADE approach), and the summary effect [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for a Systematic Review

Systematic reviewing requires specialized "research reagents" in the form of software tools and methodological resources. The following table details key solutions for the modern evidence synthesis scientist.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Conducting a Systematic Review

Tool / Resource	Function	Example Solutions
Protocol Registration	Publicly records review plan to prevent duplication and bias.	PROSPERO, Open Science Framework (OSF)
Reference Management	Stores, deduplicates, and manages search results.	Covidence [1], Rayyan, DistillerSR [6]
Dual Screening & Data Extraction	Platforms that facilitate independent review and consensus.	Covidence [1], DistillerSR [2] [6]
Risk of Bias Tools	Validated instruments to assess methodological quality of studies.	SYRCLE's RoB tool, Cochrane RoB tool, OHAT/IRIS/GRADE methods [5]
Data Synthesis Software	Conducts statistical meta-analysis and generates forest plots.	RevMan [3], R packages (metafor, meta)
Reporting Guidelines	Checklists to ensure complete and transparent reporting of the review.	PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [3]
Zofenoprilat	Zofenoprilat, CAS:75176-37-3, MF:C15H19NO3S2, MW:325.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Cyclamidomycin	Cyclamidomycin, CAS:35663-85-5, MF:C7H10N2O, MW:138.17 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In the high-stakes field of ecotoxicology, where research informs environmental policy and public health protection, the methodology behind evidence synthesis is critical. While traditional literature reviews have a role in providing introductory context, systematic reviews offer a transparent, rigorous, and reproducible process designed to minimize bias and produce the most reliable summary of the available evidence. By adhering to the structured protocol and utilizing the toolkit outlined in this application note, researchers can generate authoritative findings that robustly support chemical risk evaluations and evidence-based environmental decision-making [5].

The Critical Role of Systematic Reviews in Ecological Risk Assessment and Environmental Policy

Systematic reviews provide a critical summary of a body of knowledge that links research to decision making, whether to inform public health, clinical medicine, medical education, system-level changes, or advocacy [7]. In the field of ecotoxicology, which presents fundamental research on the effects of toxic chemicals on populations, communities and terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems [8], systematic reviews serve as an objective source of evidence to inform environmental policy. Good reviews are accessed by a wide range of audiences, including health service users, health service providers, and policy decision makers [7]. The growing awareness regarding the dangers posed by emerging contaminants (ECs) to terrestrial ecosystems and human health underscores the need for rigorous evidence synthesis through systematic review methodologies [9].

Table 1: Bibliometric Analysis of Ecological Risk Assessment Research (2005-2024)

Analysis Category	Key Findings	Data Source
Publication Growth	26.26% annual growth in publications	Web of Science Database [9]
Leading Countries	China, USA, and Italy as leading contributors	Citation Analysis [9]
Citation Impact	Switzerland exhibited highest citation impact per article	VOSviewer and CiteSpace [9]
Key Institutions	Chinese Academy of Sciences, CSIC (Spain), King Saud University	Institutional Analysis [9]
Influential Journals	Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Journal of Environmental Monitoring	Journal Analysis [9]

Application Note: Framework for Ecological Systematic Reviews

Protocol Development and Research Question Formulation

A systematic literature review is considered the gold standard of evidence-based research since it's one of the most reliable, and objective sources of evidence [6]. It uses explicit, unbiased, and well-documented methods to select, assess, and summarize all the relevant literature related to a specific topic [6]. The process begins with checking for existing reviews and protocols to determine if the review is still needed and whether the question should be altered to address gaps in current knowledge [10].

When developing research questions for ecological risk assessment, authors should consult experts, review research protocols, and employ literature review software to help automatically source, select, and qualify relevant data [6]. Information collected during preliminary literature review can help in structuring how the findings will be presented. The most effective systematic reviews in ecotoxicology formulate clear, well-defined research questions of appropriate scope using established frameworks to define question boundaries [10].

Figure 1: Systematic Review Workflow for Ecotoxicology

Search Strategy and Study Selection

Running searches in databases identified as relevant to the topic requires working with information specialists to design comprehensive search strategies across a variety of databases [10]. The process involves approaching the gray literature methodically and purposefully [10]. All retrieved records from each search should be collected into a reference manager, such as Endnote, and de-duplicated prior to screening [10].

For ecological risk assessment, studies should be selected for inclusion based on pre-defined criteria, starting with title/abstract screening to remove studies that are clearly not related to the topic [10]. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are then used to screen the full-text of studies [10]. It is highly recommended that two independent reviewers screen all studies, resolving areas of disagreement by consensus [10]. This rigorous approach ensures the objectivity and comprehensiveness required for environmental policy decisions.

Experimental Protocol: Conducting Systematic Reviews in Ecotoxicology

Data Extraction and Management

Data extraction involves using a spreadsheet or systematic review software to extract all relevant data from each included study [10]. It is recommended to pilot the data extraction tool to determine if other fields should be included or existing fields clarified [10]. For ecological risk assessment, this typically includes information about the population and setting addressed by the available evidence, comparisons addressed in the review, including all interventions, and a list of the most important outcomes, whether desirable or undesirable [6].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Ecological Systematic Reviews

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Specifications
Literature Databases	Source identification and retrieval	Web of Science, AGRICOLA, BIOSIS [8]
Reference Manager	Collection and de-duplication of records	Endnote, DistillerSR [10]
Quality Assessment Tool	Evaluate risk of bias in included studies	Cochrane RoB Tool [10]
Data Extraction Form	Systematic capture of relevant study data	Spreadsheet or systematic review software [10]
Analysis Software	Quantitative and qualitative synthesis	VOSviewer, CiteSpace [9]

Risk of Bias Assessment and Evidence Quality

Evaluating the risk of bias of included studies involves using a Risk of Bias tool (such as the Cochrane RoB Tool) to assess the potential biases of studies in regards to study design and other factors [10]. Reviewers can adapt existing tools to best meet the needs of their review, depending on the types of studies included [10]. For ecotoxicology reviews, this assessment is particularly important given the diverse methodologies employed in environmental research.

The summary of findings table includes a grade of the quality of evidence; i.e., a rating of its certainty [6]. This structured tabular format presents the primary findings of a review, particularly information related to the quality of evidence, the magnitude of the effects of the studied interventions, and the aggregate of available data on the main outcomes [6]. Most systematic reviews are expected to have one summary of findings table, but some studies may have multiple tables if the review addresses more than one comparison, or deals with substantially different populations that require separate tables [6].

Figure 2: Ecotoxicology Evidence Pathway

Application Note: Evidence Synthesis and Visualization

Quantitative and Qualitative Synthesis

Presenting results involves clearly presenting findings, including detailed methodology (such as search strategies used, selection criteria, etc.) such that the review can be easily updated in the future with new research findings [10]. A meta-analysis may be performed if the studies allow [10]. For ecological risk assessment, this synthesis provides recommendations for practice and policy-making if sufficient, high-quality evidence exists, or future directions for research to fill existing gaps in knowledge or to strengthen the body of evidence [10].

Diagrams can play an important role in communicating the review to the reader [7]. Indeed, graphic design is increasingly important for researchers to communicate their work to each other and the wider world [7]. Visualizing the topic under study facilitates discussion, helps understanding by making complexity more accessible, provokes deeper thinking, and makes concepts more memorable [7]. Higher impact scientific articles tend to include more diagrams, possibly because diagrams improve clarity and thereby lead to more citations or because high-impact articles tend to include novel, complex ideas that require visual explanation [7].

Diagrammatic Representation in Systematic Reviews

Diagrams include "logic models," "framework models," or "conceptual models"—terms that are often used interchangeably and inconsistently in the literature [7]. Effective diagrams in systematic reviews serve three primary purposes: illustrating the context and baseline understanding, clarifying the review question and scope, and presenting the results [7]. Almost all of them comprise boxes and arrows to indicate causal relationships, which aligns with systematic reviews generating or testing theories about causal relationships [7].

For meta-analyses, pathway diagrams may be overlaid with quantitative results [7]. For qualitative syntheses, diagrams arrange findings into an image of the emerging theory, offering explanations or relationships between or among observations [7]. Diagrams sometimes combine quantitative and qualitative results from paired or mixed studies to generate an integrated understanding [7]. This approach is particularly valuable in ecological risk assessment where both quantitative exposure data and qualitative ecosystem impact observations must be integrated.

Protocol for Evidence to Policy Translation

The summary of findings table presents the main findings of a review in a transparent, understandable, and simple format [6]. It includes multiple pieces of data derived from both quantitative and qualitative data analysis in systematic reviews [6]. These include information about the main outcomes, the type and number of studies included, the estimates (both relative and absolute) of the effect or association, and important comments about the review, all written in a plain-language summary so that it's easily interpreted [6].

Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology have significant implications for environmental policy, management strategies, and mitigation measures to protect ecosystem and human health [9]. The findings from these reviews help identify key trends, research hotspots, and gaps to provide policy recommendations, inform regulatory frameworks, and suggest future research directions for the sustainable management of emerging contaminants in terrestrial environments [9]. Understanding broader ecological impacts, including ecosystem responses and bioaccumulation, is crucial for informed environmental management and policy-making [9].

Table 3: Temporal Trends in Ecological Risk Assessment Research (2005-2024)

Time Period	Research Focus	Key Contaminants	Assessment Methods
2005-2010	Single contaminant effects	Heavy metals, pesticides	Traditional toxicological assessment
2011-2016	Mixture toxicity	Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors	Combined risk assessment models
2017-2024	Ecosystem-scale impacts	Microplastics, emerging contaminants	Ecological network analysis [9]

Advanced Visualization for Policy Communication

Creating effective diagrams for systematic reviews involves several key steps: choosing the purpose of the diagram before starting to assemble it; identifying the key information to be communicated; working as a team to capture and share understanding from various perspectives; and starting simply and expecting at least a few iterations [7]. Additional considerations include giving the diagram a clear starting point to help readers navigate the diagram more easily; using visual conventions such as reading from left to right, top to bottom, or both to offer a clear flow of ideas; and limiting the number of arrows to guide the readers' gaze [7].

For policy communication, diagrams should use plain language and fewer words without a long legend, key, or acronyms so that the diagram can be understood intuitively [7]. Related information should be grouped in columns or rows with headings, colors, or shapes to draw attention to key parts, such as activities or outcomes [7]. These features should be used selectively to avoid obscuring key relationships with too many layers [7]. The development process should include seeking feedback from others, including peers and the intended audience, while the diagram is developing [7].

Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology require clearly framed research questions to define objectives, delineate approach, and guide the entire review process [11]. The PECO framework (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) has emerged as the standard for formulating these questions, adapting the well-established PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework used in healthcare research to better suit the unique needs of environmental health sciences [11] [12]. While the Cochrane Handbook, a recognized reference for systematic reviews, does not specifically address the development of questions for reviews of exposures, organizations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, the Navigation Guide, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) have all emphasized the role of the PECO question to guide the systematic review process for questions about exposures [11].

A well-constructed PECO question defines the review's objectives and informs the study design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the interpretation of findings [11]. In ecotoxicology, which studies how toxic chemicals interact with organisms in the environment, this framework provides the necessary structure to investigate the effects of environmental contaminants on diverse species and ecosystems [13]. The fundamental challenge in environmental, public, and occupational health research lies in properly identifying the exposure and comparator within the PECO, which differs significantly from formulating questions about intentional interventions in the PICO framework [11].

Defining the PECO Components

Core Elements and Definitions

Each component of the PECO framework serves a distinct purpose in structuring an ecotoxicological research question.

• Population (P): This refers to the organisms, ecosystems, or environmental compartments of interest. Ecotoxicology encompasses an enormous biodiversity, including marine and freshwater organisms, terrestrial species from invertebrates to vertebrates, plants, fungi, and microbial communities [13]. The population must be clearly specified, whether it is a specific model species (e.g., Daphnia magna, zebrafish), a functional group (e.g., soil decomposers), or a defined ecosystem (e.g., a freshwater lake sediment community) [13] [14].

• Exposure (E): This defines the chemical, contaminant, or stressor under investigation and its characteristics. This can include classic contaminants (e.g., pesticides, metals, persistent organic pollutants), emerging contaminants (e.g., nanomaterials, pharmaceuticals, microplastics), or complex mixtures [14] [15]. The exposure definition should consider aspects such as the route of exposure (e.g., dietary, waterborne, sediment), duration (acute vs. chronic), and chemical speciation or bioavailability where relevant [13].

• Comparator (C): This defines the reference scenario against which the exposure is evaluated. This is a particularly challenging component in exposure science. The comparator can be an unexposed control group, a group exposed to background levels of the contaminant, a group exposed to a different level or range of the same contaminant, or an alternative chemical or stressor [11]. The choice of comparator is critical for interpreting the directness and real-world relevance of the findings.

• Outcome (O): This specifies the measurable effects or endpoints used to assess the impact of the exposure. In ecotoxicology, common endpoints include survival (lethal effects), reproduction, growth, development, behavior, biochemical biomarkers, genetic toxicity, and population- or community-level changes [16] [13]. Endpoints are often categorized as sublethal or lethal, with sublethal endpoints increasingly used as more sensitive indicators of toxicity [16].

Ecotoxicology-Specific Considerations for PECO

Applying PECO in ecotoxicology requires special attention to several factors beyond the basic definitions:

• Environmental Realism and Lab-to-Field Extrapolation: A key challenge is translating results from controlled laboratory studies to complex field environments. The PECO question should be framed with consideration for environmental fate and behavior of the chemical, including its persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and transformations in the environment [13] [14].

• Trophic Levels and Ecosystem Complexity: Ecotoxicological risk assessment often requires data from species representing different trophic levels (e.g., primary producers, primary consumers, predators) [13]. A PECO question may need to address multiple populations simultaneously or separately to provide a comprehensive hazard assessment.

• Multiple Stressors: Organisms in the environment are seldom exposed to a single contaminant in isolation. While PECO typically focuses on a primary exposure, the framework can be adapted to investigate mixtures or interactive effects of multiple stressors [15].

Application Notes: PECO in Practice

Five Paradigmatic Scenarios for PECO Questions

The context of the research and what is already known about the exposure-outcome relationship will dictate how a PECO question is phrased [11]. The following scenarios, adapted for ecotoxicology, provide a framework for formulating questions.

Table 1: PECO Scenarios in Ecotoxicology Systematic Reviews

Scenario & Context	Approach	Ecotoxicology PECO Example
1. Exploring an association or dose-response relationship	Explore the shape and distribution of the relationship between exposure and outcome across a range of exposures.	Among freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca), what is the effect of a 1 µg/L incremental increase in sediment-bound pyrethroid pesticides on mortality? [11]
2. Evaluating effects using data-driven exposure cut-offs	Use cut-offs (e.g., tertiles, quartiles) defined based on the distribution of exposures reported in the literature.	In soil nematodes, what is the effect of the highest quartile of microplastic concentration in soil compared to the lowest quartile on reproductive capacity? [11]
3. Evaluating effects using externally defined cut-offs	Use exposure cut-offs identified from or known from other populations, regulations, or preliminary research.	Among avian insectivores, what is the effect of dietary exposure to EPA chronic toxicity reference values for organophosphates compared to background exposure on fledgling success? [11]
4. Identifying a risk-based exposure threshold	Use existing exposure cut-offs associated with known adverse outcomes of regulatory or biological relevance.	Among aquatic algae, what is the effect of exposure to copper concentrations below the EPA Ambient Water Quality Criterion (< 3.1 µg/L) compared to concentrations at or above it on growth inhibition? [11]
5. Evaluating an intervention to reduce exposure	Select the comparator based on the exposure reduction achievable through a specific intervention or mitigation strategy.	In agricultural streams, what is the effect of implementing riparian buffer zones compared to no buffers on the toxicity of insecticide runoff to benthic macroinvertebrates? [11]

Quantifying the Exposure and Defining the Comparator

A critical step in implementing Scenarios 2-5 is the quantification of the exposure, often referred to as defining a "cut-off" value [11]. In this context, a cut-off broadly refers to thresholds, levels, durations, means, medians, or ranges of exposure. Sources for defining these values can include:

• Regulatory thresholds from agencies like the EPA or OSHA [11].
• Values reported in the published literature from previous primary research or systematic reviews.
• Current legislation or environmental quality standards.
• A level considered to produce a minimally important change in the outcome, based on biological or ecological significance [11].

Experimental Protocols and Data Analysis

Standardized Ecotoxicity Testing Protocols

Data for systematic reviews in ecotoxicology are generated through standardized test guidelines. The following table summarizes key methods and their applications.

Table 2: Standardized Ecotoxicity Test Methods and Data Analysis

Test Organism / System	Commonly Assessed Endpoints (Outcomes)	Standardized Protocol (e.g., OECD, EPA, ISO)	Recommended Statistical Analysis
Freshwater Algae (e.g., Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata)	Growth rate inhibition, biomass yield	OECD 201, EPA 1003.0	Regression analysis to calculate EC50 (concentration causing 50% effect) or NOEC/LOEC via ANOVA [16]
Freshwater Crustaceans (e.g., Daphnia magna)	Immobilization (acute), reproduction, growth (chronic)	OECD 202, OECD 211, EPA 1002.0	Logistic regression for LC50/EC50; ANOVA for reproduction/growth data [16]
Fish (e.g., zebrafish, fathead minnow)	Mortality (acute), growth, reproduction, embryonic development	OECD 203, OECD 210, OECD 236 (FET)	Probit or logit analysis for LC50; ANOVA for sublethal endpoints [16]
Earthworms (e.g., Eisenia fetida)	Mortality, reproduction, biomass change	OECD 207, OECD 222	ANOVA for comparison to control; regression for dose-response [13]
Sediment-Dwelling Organisms (e.g., Chironomus riparius)	Survival, growth, emergence	OECD 218, OECD 219, EPA 100.1	ANOVA to compare responses across sediments; possible regression if concentration gradient is established [13]

Statistical Analysis Workflow

The type of statistical analysis depends on the nature of the data (quantitative, quantal/binary, count) and the study design [16]. The general workflow for analyzing data from a standard dose-response ecotoxicity test is outlined below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions in Ecotoxicology

Reagent / Material	Function and Application in Ecotoxicity Testing
Reconstituted Test Water	A standardized synthetic water medium with defined hardness, pH, and alkalosity; ensures reproducibility in aquatic tests by providing a consistent exposure matrix [16].
Control Sediment/Solis	Reference sediments or soils with known properties (e.g., particle size, organic carbon content); used as a negative control and dilution series matrix for sediment/terrestrial tests [13].
Reference Toxicants	Standard, well-characterized chemicals (e.g., potassium dichromate, sodium chloride); used to assess the health and sensitivity of test organisms, ensuring quality control [16].
Algal Culture Medium	A nutrient solution providing essential elements (N, P, trace metals) for culturing and testing algal species according to standardized guidelines [16].
Eluent/Extraction Solvents	High-purity organic solvents (e.g., acetone, hexane, methanol); used to prepare stock solutions of test chemicals and for analytical verification of exposure concentrations [16] [15].
Forsythoside F	Forsythoside F, CAS:94130-58-2, MF:C34H44O19, MW:756.7 g/mol
Viomellein	Viomellein|Antibacterial Mycotoxin|For Research

Emerging Methods and Integration with AOPs

New Approach Methods (NAMs) and Computational Tools

The field is rapidly evolving with New Approach Methods (NAMs) that can provide data for systematic reviews [17]. These include:

• Omics Technologies: Genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics provide insights into molecular mechanisms and enable the discovery of sensitive biomarkers of exposure and effect [18].
• In Vitro Testing: Cell-based assays and high-throughput screening (HTS) offer rapid, mechanistic data while reducing reliance on whole-organism tests [18] [19]. Programs like ToxCast and Tox21 have generated millions of data points for thousands of chemicals [19].
• In Silico Methods: Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) and machine learning models predict toxicity based on chemical structure, useful for prioritizing chemicals for testing or filling data gaps [18] [19].

The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Framework

The AOP framework provides a structured way to organize evidence linking a molecular initiating event (MIE) to an adverse outcome (AO) at the organism or population level across a series of key events [19]. This conceptual model is highly valuable for structuring PECO questions around mechanistic pathways.

Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology can use the AOP framework to synthesize evidence supporting or refuting key event relationships, thereby strengthening the biological plausibility in a causal assessment [19]. PECO questions can be formulated for each key event in the pathway, creating a comprehensive and mechanistically informed evidence base for environmental risk assessment.

Application Note: Advanced Analytical Techniques for Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs)

Background and Principle

The identification of unknown chemical drivers of toxicity in complex environmental samples remains a significant challenge in ecotoxicology. Effect-Directed Analysis (EDA) integrates separation, biotesting, and chemical analysis to isolate and identify causative toxicants [20]. When coupled with Non-Targeted Analysis (NTA) using High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS), this approach provides a powerful tool for identifying previously unrecognized Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) [20] [21]. CECs include a broad category of pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals, endocrine-disrupting compounds, and microplastics, whose presence and impacts in the environment are still being fully understood [21]. The core principle is to fractionate a sample and use bioassays to pinpoint fractions with biological activity, subsequently employing HRMS to identify the specific compounds within those active fractions.

Key Quantitative Findings from Systematic Reviews

A systematic quantitative literature review of 95 studies reveals the comparative effectiveness of different analytical approaches in explaining observed sample toxicity. The following table summarizes the key findings, which are critical for designing systematic reviews and prioritizing methodologies [20].

Table 1: Explained Toxicity from Different Analytical Approaches in Ecotoxicological Studies

Analytical Approach	Description	Median Percentage of Explained Toxicity	Number of Studies (Out of 95) Where Toxicity Was Largely Explained (>75%)
TOXtarget	Analysis focused only on pre-selected target compounds	13%	Not Specified
TOXnon-target	Analysis using non-targeted methods to identify unknowns	47%	8 Studies
TOXtarget+non-target	Combination of both targeted and non-targeted analysis	34%	4 Studies had partially explained endpoints

Experimental Protocol: EDA-NTA Workflow

Title: Integrated Effect-Directed Analysis and Non-Targeted Analysis for Identification of Bioactive Contaminants.

Objective: To isolate, identify, and confirm the chemical constituents responsible for the toxicity of an environmental sample (e.g., wastewater effluent, surface water, or sediment extract).

Materials and Reagents:

• Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges: e.g., Oasis HLB, C18, for sample concentration and clean-up.
• Bioassay Reagents: Specific to the endpoint of interest (e.g., YES/YAS kits for estrogen/androgen receptor activity, reagents for aryl hydrocarbon receptor assay, or cytotoxicity assays).
• HPLC/UPLC System: With reverse-phase and/or hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) columns to address analytical bias against polar compounds [20].
• High-Resolution Mass Spectrometer: e.g., Q-TOF or Orbitrap instrument.
• Fraction Collector: For automated collection of HPLC effluent.
• Solvents: HPLC-grade methanol, acetonitrile, and water.
• In silico Prediction Software: e.g., for retention time prediction and spectral simulation to aid identification [20].

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Concentrate the water sample (e.g., 1 L) using Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE). Elute the absorbed compounds with a strong solvent (e.g., methanol), evaporate to dryness, and reconstitute in a small volume of a compatible solvent for bioassay and chemical analysis [20].
• Fractionation: Inject an aliquot of the sample extract onto a preparative HPLC system. Using a fraction collector, collect the effluent over the entire chromatographic run time into multiple fractions (e.g., 10-20). Recombine fractions as needed to reduce the number of bioassays.
• Effect Assessment (Biotesting): Test the original sample extract and all collected fractions using a relevant bioassay battery (e.g., estrogen, androgen, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor assays) [20]. Normalize the biological responses to the original whole extract to locate the bioactive fractions.
• Non-Targeted Chemical Analysis: Analyze the active fractions using LC-HRMS. Data should be acquired in both positive and negative ionization modes to maximize compound coverage.
• Data Processing and Compound Identification: Process the raw HRMS data using software (e.g., XCMS, MS-DIAL) for peak picking, alignment, and componentization. Prioritize features present in the bioactive fractions. Use accurate mass to generate molecular formulae and search against chemical databases (e.g., PubChem). Utilize MS/MS spectral libraries and in silico fragmentation tools for structure elucidation [20].
• Confirmation: Where possible, confirm the identity and biological activity of the putative toxicant by obtaining an authentic standard and re-analyzing it under the same conditions (retention time matching, MS/MS spectrum matching) and re-testing it in the bioassay.

Application Note: Computational Methods in Predictive Ecotoxicology

Background and Principle

Computational methods, often termed in silico toxicology, offer a pathway to assess chemical hazards without animal testing, aligning with the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) [21]. These methods are indispensable for prioritizing the risk of the vast number of existing and new chemicals for which empirical toxicity data is lacking. The foundation of these approaches is the principle that the biological activity of a chemical is a function of its molecular structure [21]. By building mathematical models based on known data, the toxicity of untested, structurally similar chemicals can be predicted.

Key Methodologies and Endpoints

Table 2: Overview of Major Computational Methods in Predictive Ecotoxicology

Method	Core Principle	Common Application in Ecotoxicology	Key Considerations
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR)	Develops a quantitative model that relates descriptors of a chemical's structure to a biological activity or property.	Predicting acute toxicity (e.g., LC50 for fish), bioaccumulation potential, and environmental fate (e.g., biodegradation) [21].	Model domain of applicability is critical; predictions are unreliable for chemicals outside the structural space of the training set.
Read-Across	Infers the properties of a "target" chemical by using data from similar "source" chemicals (analogues).	Filling data gaps for regulatory submissions, particularly for categories of chemicals like polymers or UVCBs (Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, or Biological materials).	Justification for the similarity of the analogues is a key step and potential source of uncertainty.
Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development	Organizes existing knowledge about linked events across biological levels from a molecular initiating event to an adverse outcome at the organism or population level [21].	Providing a mechanistic framework for interpreting in vitro and in silico data in an ecologically relevant context. Used in integrated testing strategies.	AOPs are qualitative frameworks; quantitative AOPs (qAOPs) are needed for predictive risk assessment.

Experimental Protocol: Developing a QSAR Model for Toxicity Prediction

Title: In Silico Prediction of Acute Aquatic Toxicity using Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modeling.

Objective: To develop and validate a QSAR model for predicting the acute toxicity (e.g., 48-hour LC50 for Daphnia magna) of new chemical entities.

Materials and Reagents:

• Chemical Dataset: A curated set of chemicals with reliable, experimental acute toxicity data (e.g., from the EPA ECOTOX database [22]).
• Chemical Structure Representation: Software to generate and handle chemical structures (e.g., SMILES strings, SDF files).
• Molecular Descriptor Calculation Software: Tools like PaDEL-Descriptor, DRAGON, or those integrated into modeling suites.
• QSAR Modeling Software: Platforms such as KNIME, Orange Data Mining, or specialized software like WEKA.
• Validation Tools: Software with capabilities for statistical validation (e.g., cross-validation, external validation).

Procedure:

• Data Collection and Curation: Compile a dataset of chemicals and their corresponding experimental toxicity values. Remove duplicates and compounds with uncertain structures or data. Divide the dataset into a training set (~70-80%) for model development and a test set (~20-30%) for external validation.
• Descriptor Calculation and Selection: For each chemical in the dataset, compute a wide range of molecular descriptors (e.g., constitutional, topological, electronic, and geometrical). Pre-process the data by removing constant and correlated descriptors. Use feature selection methods (e.g., genetic algorithms, stepwise selection) to reduce dimensionality and select the most relevant descriptors for the model.
• Model Development: Apply a statistical or machine learning algorithm (e.g., Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Partial Least Squares (PLS), or Support Vector Machines (SVM)) to the training set to build a model that correlates the selected descriptors with the toxicity endpoint.
• Model Validation: Rigorously validate the model to assess its predictive power and reliability.
  • Internal Validation: Use techniques like cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold or 10-fold) on the training set. Report metrics like Q² (cross-validated correlation coefficient).
  • External Validation: Use the held-out test set to evaluate the model's performance on unseen data. Report metrics including R² (coefficient of determination), RMSE (root mean square error), and MAE (mean absolute error).
• Defining the Applicability Domain: Characterize the chemical space of the training set using methods like leverage or distance-based measures. This defines the scope within which the model can make reliable predictions.
• Prediction and Reporting: Use the validated model to predict the toxicity of new chemicals. Clearly report the prediction along with an indication of whether the chemical falls within the model's applicability domain.

Visualizing Workflows and Pathways

The following diagrams, generated using Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the core workflows and conceptual frameworks described in these application notes.

EDA-NTA Workflow for Toxicant Identification

Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Conceptual Framework

QSAR Model Development Workflow

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Databases for Ecotoxicology and Environmental Chemistry

Category	Item/Resource	Function and Application
Bioassays	Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) / Yeast Androgen Screen (YAS)	In vitro reporter gene assays used to detect compounds that activate estrogen or androgen receptors, crucial for EDA of endocrine-disrupting compounds [20].
Analytical Standards	Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Added to samples prior to analysis via HRMS to correct for matrix effects and instrument variability, improving quantitative accuracy in NTA.
Chromatography	HILIC Columns	Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography columns; used to retain and separate highly polar and ionic compounds that are often missed by standard reverse-phase methods, reducing analytical bias [20].
Computational Tools	Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Software	Used to build predictive models that relate a chemical's molecular structure to its toxicological activity, filling data gaps for new chemicals [21].
Data Resources	EPA ECOTOX Database	A comprehensive, publicly available database providing single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife [22]. Essential for model training and validation.
Data Resources	Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO)	A database of over 600,000 scientific references and data from peer-reviewed literature used by the U.S. EPA to support regulatory decision-making [22]. Vital for systematic reviews.

In the field of ecotoxicology, the credibility of research is paramount for informing environmental risk assessments and regulatory decisions. The process of systematic review, which aims to comprehensively identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular question, is fundamentally dependent on the availability and transparency of primary research [23]. Pre-registration—the practice of detailing a research plan in a time-stamped, immutable registry before a study is conducted—serves as a powerful tool to enhance this transparency and combat issues like publication bias and undisclosed analytical flexibility, thereby strengthening the entire evidence base for systematic reviews [24]. This protocol outlines the importance of pre-registration and provides a detailed framework for its implementation in ecotoxicological research.

Table 1: Core Concepts in Pre-registration for Ecotoxicology

Concept	Definition	Relevance to Ecotoxicology
Pre-registration	The practice of submitting a detailed research plan to a public registry before conducting a study [24].	Creates a public record of planned vs. unplanned work, distinguishing hypothesis testing from exploration.
Confirmatory Research	Research that involves testing a specific, pre-defined hypothesis with the goal of minimizing false-positive findings [24].	Essential for definitively establishing the toxicity of a chemical or the effect of an environmental stressor.
Exploratory Research	Research that involves looking for potential relationships, effects, or differences without a single, pre-specified test; it is hypothesis-generating [24].	Crucial for discovering unexpected toxicological effects or interactions, such as hormesis [25].
Transparent Changes	The documented and justified disclosure of any deviations from the pre-registered plan that occur during the research process [24].	Maintains the credibility of a study when practical constraints or unforeseen issues necessitate protocol changes.

The Rationale: Why Pre-registration is Critical for Ecotoxicology

Pre-registration future-proofs research by clearly distinguishing planned, confirmatory analyses from unplanned, exploratory analyses. This distinction is critical for maintaining the diagnostic value of statistical inferences, such as p-values [24]. In ecotoxicology, where studies often involve multiple endpoints and complex statistical models (e.g., probit regression for binary mortality data or ANOVA for growth comparisons), the risk of data-dependent decisions inflating false-positive rates is significant [25]. Pre-registration mitigates this risk by locking in the analytical plan prior to data collection. Furthermore, it addresses publication bias by ensuring that studies with null results are part of the scientific record, as the pre-registration timestamp stakes a claim to the research idea independent of the eventual outcome [24]. This provides a more complete and less biased body of literature for systematic reviews, such as those curating data for the ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase, to synthesize [23].

Application Notes and Protocols for Pre-registration

Pre-registration Workflow and Decision Protocol

The following diagram outlines the key stages and decision points in the pre-registration process for an ecotoxicology study.

Detailed Experimental Methodology for a Pre-registered Ecotoxicity Test

This protocol uses a standard acute lethality test with a sub-sampling design for confirmation as an example.

Title: Pre-registered Protocol for Determining LC~50~ in Daphnia magna with Exploratory and Confirmatory Phases.

Objective: To confirmatively determine the 48-hour median lethal concentration (LC~50~) of a test chemical in Daphnia magna.

Hypothesis: The LC~50~ of the test chemical for Daphnia magna is between X and Y mg/L.

1. Test Organisms and Acclimation:

• Organism: Daphnia magna, neonates (<24 hours old).
• Source: In-house culture or certified supplier.
• Acclimation: Acclimate to test conditions (20°C ± 1, 16:8 light:dark cycle) for a minimum of 48 hours prior to testing.
• Handling: Organisms shall not be fed during the acclimation period 2 hours before the test and for the test duration.

2. Experimental Design:

• Test Type: Static non-renewal.
• Concentrations: A minimum of five test concentrations and a negative control (reconstituted water per standard guidelines [25]).
• Replicates: Four replicates per concentration.
• Organisms per Replicate: Five neonates, randomly assigned.
• Total Organisms: 120 neonates (5 conc. + 1 control) * 4 replicates * 5 organisms = 120.
• Randomization: The assignment of test beakers to positions in the environmental chamber will be fully randomized. A random number generator will be used to create the layout.

3. Data Collection:

• Endpoint: Mortality (immobility) at 48 hours. An organism is considered immobile if no movement is observed within 15 seconds after gentle agitation.
• Blinding: The personnel scoring mortality will be blinded to the treatment groups. A second researcher will code the test beakers with non-revealing identifiers.

4. Confirmatory Statistical Analysis Plan:

• Primary Model: LC~50~ and its 95% confidence interval will be determined using probit regression [25].
• Software: Analysis will be conducted in R using the drc package [25].
• Model Fit: Goodness-of-fit will be assessed via a Pearson chi-square test.
• Acceptance Criteria: The test is considered valid if control mortality is ≤10%.

5. Exploratory Analysis Plan:

• The raw data will be fitted to alternative models (e.g., logit regression) and the model with the best fit (assessed by Akaike Information Criterion) will be reported separately as an exploratory finding.
• Data from the 24-hour time point will be analyzed and reported as exploratory.

6. Split-Sample Validation (Optional):

• If the researcher is in an exploratory phase, the total number of organisms will be doubled (N=240). The data will be randomly split into a "training" set (N=120) for model exploration and a "validation" set (N=120) for confirmatory testing of the identified model [24].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ecotoxicology

Item	Function/Explanation	Example in Protocol
Test Organisms	Standardized, sensitive species used as bioindicators for toxic effects.	Daphnia magna (water flea) or other model species [23].
Control Water	A standardized, uncontaminated water medium that serves as a baseline for comparing toxic effects.	Reconstituted water per EPA or OECD guidelines [25].
Probit/Logit Model	Statistical models suitable for analyzing binary (e.g., dead/alive) dose-response data to calculate LC~50~/EC~50~ [25].	Used in the confirmatory analysis to determine the median lethal concentration.
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	A curated database of ecotoxicity tests used to inform test design and place results in the context of existing literature [23].	Consulted during the pre-registration planning phase to identify relevant test concentrations and methodologies.
Benchmark Dose Software	Specialized software (e.g., US EPA BMDS) for conducting dose-response modeling and determining benchmark doses [25].	An alternative tool for performing the primary statistical analysis.
R with drc package	A statistical programming environment and a specific package for analyzing dose-response curves [25].	The planned software for executing the confirmatory probit regression analysis.

Implementing Transparency in Practice

Navigating Changes and Exploratory Analysis

A pre-registration is a plan, not an unchangeable straitjacket. It is expected that deviations may occur due to unforeseen circumstances. The key is to handle these changes transparently [24].

• Creating a Transparent Changes Document: When writing up the results, researchers must create a "Transparent Changes" document that is uploaded alongside the final manuscript. This document should:
  • List every deviation from the pre-registered plan.
  • Provide a clear and justified reason for each change.
  • Distinguish between changes made before any data analysis (e.g., a different dilution factor was needed) and those made after seeing the data.
• Reporting Exploratory Analyses: All unplanned, exploratory analyses must be clearly identified as such in the manuscript (e.g., in a separate section titled "Exploratory Analyses"). This ensures readers can distinguish between hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating results, understanding that p-values from exploratory analyses are less diagnostic [24].

Data and Workflow Transparency

Clear visual communication is a critical component of research transparency. However, many scientific figures, particularly those using arrow symbols, are ambiguous and can be misinterpreted by learners and researchers [26]. The following diagram provides a standardized visual model for the central dogma, using arrows with clearly defined meanings to avoid confusion.

Adhering to visualization guidelines that ensure sufficient color contrast between elements (like arrows or text) and their background is also essential for accessibility and clear communication [27]. This practice ensures that figures are interpretable by all readers and in various publication formats.

Executing Your Review: A Step-by-Step Methodology for Ecotoxicology Research

A well-defined research question is the critical first step in conducting a rigorous systematic review in ecotoxicology. It establishes the review's scope, guides the search strategy, and determines the eligibility criteria for including primary studies. The use of structured frameworks ensures that all key components of the ecotoxicological inquiry are comprehensively addressed. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and its ecotoxicology-specific adaptation, PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome), provide a standardized methodology for formulating precise and answerable research questions [28]. Applying these frameworks systematically helps researchers avoid ambiguity, enhances the reproducibility of the review process, and ensures that the synthesized evidence directly addresses the intended research or risk assessment objective [29] [30].

Within ecotoxicology, these structured frameworks are indispensable for organizing the vast and complex body of literature on chemical effects on organisms and ecosystems. For example, a systematic review protocol investigating the effects of chemicals on tropical reef-building corals explicitly defined its PICO elements to create clear boundaries for the evidence synthesis [30]. Similarly, the U.S. EPA's ECOTOX Knowledgebase employs a PECO statement to screen and include relevant toxicity studies with high specificity [31]. This precise framing is essential for generating reliable toxicity thresholds, such as No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOEC) and median lethal concentrations (LC50), which form the basis for ecological risk assessments and regulatory standards [30] [31].

Core Components of the Ecotoxicological Question

The following table details the core components of the PICO/PECO framework, with specific definitions and examples tailored to ecotoxicological systematic reviews.

Table 1: Core Components of the PICO/PECO Framework in Ecotoxicology

Component	Description	Ecotoxicology-Specific Considerations	Examples from the Literature
Population (P)	The organisms or ecological systems under investigation.	Must be taxonomically verifiable and ecologically relevant. Can include whole organisms, specific life stages (e.g., larvae, adults), or even in vitro systems (e.g., cells, tissues). [31]	All tropical reef-building coral species (e.g., hermatypic scleractinians, Millepora). This includes all developmental stages and associated symbionts. [30]
Intervention/Exposure (I/E)	The chemical stressor or environmental contaminant of interest.	A single, verifiable chemical toxicant with a known exposure concentration, duration, and route of administration (e.g., water, soil, diet). [31]	All geogenic (e.g., trace metals) and synthetic chemicals (e.g., herbicide Diuron) with known exposure concentrations. Nutrients (e.g., nitrate) may be excluded depending on the review's focus. [30]
Comparator (C)	The reference condition against which the exposure is evaluated.	Typically, a control group that is not exposed to the chemical of interest or is exposed to background environmental levels. This establishes a baseline for measuring effect. [31]	A population not exposed to the chemicals, or a population prior to chemical exposure. [30]
Outcome (O)	The measured biological or ecological endpoints indicating an effect.	encompasses a wide range of endpoints from molecular to population levels. Common outcomes include mortality, growth reduction, reproductive impairment, biochemical changes, and bioaccumulation. [31]	All outcomes related to health status, from molecular (gene expression) to colony-level (photosynthesis, bleaching) and population-level (mortality rate). [30]

The PECO framework used by the ECOTOX Knowledgebase further refines these components with strict eligibility criteria for data inclusion. Its "Effect" outcome is broad, capturing records related to mortality, growth, reproduction, physiology, behavior, biochemistry, genetics, and population-level effects [31].

Experimental Protocols for Ecotoxicology Studies

The primary evidence for ecotoxicological systematic reviews originates from standardized toxicity tests. The following protocol outlines the general methodology for a typical acute toxicity test, which measures the effects of short-term chemical exposure.

Protocol 1: Standard Acute Toxicity Test for Aquatic Organisms

1. Objective: To determine the acute effects of a chemical on a defined aquatic population, typically resulting in the calculation of a median lethal concentration (LC50) or median effective concentration (EC50).

2. Materials and Reagents

• Test Chemical: Pure compound of known identity and purity (e.g., CASRN verified).
• Test Organisms: A defined number of individuals of a target species (e.g., Daphnia magna, fathead minnow), of a specific age and health status, acclimated to laboratory conditions.
• Test Chambers: Glass or chemically inert containers of appropriate volume (e.g., beakers, aquaria).
• Dilution Water: A standardized, clean water medium of known hardness, pH, and alkalinity.
• Aeration System: To maintain dissolved oxygen levels.
• Environmental Control System: Equipment to maintain constant temperature, and a controlled light-dark cycle.

3. Procedure 1. Test Solution Preparation: Prepare a logarithmic series of at least five concentrations of the test chemical via serial dilution in the dilution water. Include a control treatment (zero concentration of the test chemical). 2. Randomization and Allocation: Randomly assign test organisms to each test chamber, ensuring each concentration and the control is replicated (typically 3-4 replicates). 3. Exposure: Gently introduce the organisms into their respective test chambers. The test duration is typically 24, 48, or 96 hours, depending on the species and standard guidelines. 4. Maintenance: Do not feed the organisms during acute tests. Maintain constant environmental conditions (temperature, light). Aerate solutions if needed without causing excessive loss of the chemical. 5. Monitoring: Monitor and record water quality parameters (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen) daily in at least one replicate per treatment. 6. Data Collection: At the end of the exposure period, record the number of dead or affected organisms in each chamber. The endpoint for mortality is typically the lack of movement after gentle prodding.

4. Data Analysis * Calculate the percentage mortality or effect in each test concentration. * Correct for mortality in the control group using Abbott's formula if necessary. * Use statistical probit or logistic regression analysis to calculate the LC50/EC50 value and its 95% confidence intervals.

The methodology for chronic tests is similar but of longer duration (e.g., 7 to 28 days), often involves renewal of test solutions, and includes feeding. The outcomes measured are sublethal, such as reproduction output or growth rate, from which endpoints like the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) and Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC) are derived [30] [31].

Diagram 1: Acute toxicity test workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Materials in Ecotoxicology

Item	Function/Description	Application Example
Standard Test Organisms	Well-characterized species with known sensitivity and standardized culturing methods. Used as biological indicators of chemical toxicity.	Aquatic tests: Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Water flea (Daphnia magna). Terrestrial tests: Earthworm (Eisenia fetida). [31]
Reference Toxicants	Standard, pure chemicals of known high toxicity (e.g., potassium dichromate, sodium chloride). Used to validate the health and sensitivity of test organisms.	Routinely tested to ensure the bioassay system is responding within an expected range, verifying test validity. [31]
Reconstituted Dilution Water	A synthetic laboratory water prepared with specific salts to achieve a standardized hardness, pH, and alkalinity.	Provides a consistent and uncontaminated medium for preparing test solutions in aquatic toxicity tests, minimizing confounding variables. [31]
ASTM/OECD Test Guidelines	Standardized procedural documents detailing approved methods for conducting toxicity tests.	Examples: USEPA Series 850, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment. Ensure tests are conducted consistently and results are comparable across studies. [31]
Torularhodin	Torularhodin, CAS:514-92-1, MF:C40H52O2, MW:564.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Multiflorin A	Multiflorin A, MF:C29H32O16, MW:636.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Application in Evidence Synthesis and Risk Assessment

The rigorous application of PECO during study screening and data extraction directly feeds into the quantitative synthesis of toxicity data. The extracted toxicity values (e.g., LC50, NOEC) from multiple studies for a given chemical and species group can be statistically analyzed to derive species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). These SSDs are fundamental for determining predictive toxicity reference values (TRVs) and Aquatic Life Criteria, which are used by regulatory bodies like the U.S. EPA to set protective environmental quality guidelines [31]. The entire process, from the initial PECO question to the final risk assessment value, is visualized in the following workflow.

Diagram 2: PECO to risk assessment workflow.

Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology aim to synthesize all available evidence to answer specific research questions regarding the effects of chemical contaminants on biological systems. A fundamental principle of a high-quality systematic review is the comprehensive and unbiased search for relevant studies. This necessitates a strategic approach to navigating multiple bibliographic databases and grey literature sources, while actively mitigating biases, including language bias, which can skew results by overlooking non-English publications. This protocol provides detailed methodologies for constructing and executing a systematic search strategy tailored to the field of ecotoxicology.

Developing the Systematic Search Plan

A pre-defined, transparent search plan is critical to minimize bias and ensure the review's reproducibility [32].

Core Components of a Search Strategy

A robust search strategy is built from a combination of conceptual elements and technical search terms. The table below outlines the essential components.

Table 1: Core Components of a Systematic Search Strategy

Component	Description	Application in Ecotoxicology
PICOS Framework	Defines the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study types.	Population: Specific organism (e.g., Daphnia magna). Intervention: Specific contaminant (e.g., glyphosate). Comparator: Control/unexposed groups. Outcomes: Measured endpoints (e.g., mortality, reproduction). Study: Experimental lab studies, field studies.
Keywords	Free-text terms searched in titles and abstracts.	Include synonyms, common names, and scientific names (e.g., "Roundup" AND "glyphosate"). Use truncation (e.g., ecotox* for ecotoxicity, ecotoxicological) and wildcards (e.g., behavi*r for behavior, behaviour) [33].
Controlled Vocabulary	Pre-defined subject terms (e.g., MeSH in MEDLINE, Emtree in Embase).	Identify relevant terms in each database. For example, the MeSH term "Water Pollutants, Chemical" can be exploded to include more specific terms [33].
Boolean Operators	AND, OR, NOT used to combine terms.	OR: Broadens search (e.g., "freshwater fish" OR trout OR zebrafish). AND: Narrows search (e.g., microplastics AND growth). NOT: Excludes concepts (use cautiously to avoid missing relevant studies) [33].

A comprehensive search involves multiple information sources to capture both published and grey literature. The following workflow diagrams the recommended process, from planning to results management.

Figure 1: Workflow for Systematic Search Execution

2.2.1. Bibliographic Databases A core set of multidisciplinary and subject-specific databases should be searched. The table below lists key databases for ecotoxicology research.

Table 2: Key Information Sources for Ecotoxicology Systematic Reviews

Source Type	Database/Resource Name	Focus & Relevance
Multidisciplinary Databases	Web of Science, Scopus	Core sources covering high-impact journals across sciences. Essential for comprehensive coverage.
Subject-Specific Databases	Environment Complete, AGRICOLA, PubMed	Cover specialized literature in environmental sciences, agriculture, and toxicology.
Grey Literature Databases	OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses	Provide access to European grey literature and academic theses, respectively.
Targeted Websites & Repositories	US EPA, EFSA, ECOTOX Knowledgebase, government reports	Host regulatory data, risk assessments, and technical reports not found in journals.

2.2.2. Grey Literature Search Protocol Grey literature is crucial to minimize publication bias, as studies with null or non-significant results are less likely to be published in academic journals [33]. A systematic approach to grey literature should incorporate four complementary strategies [34] [35]:

• Grey Literature Databases: Search specialized databases like OpenGrey.
• Customized Google Search Engines: Use advanced search operators and site-specific searches (e.g., site:epa.gov microplastics fish) [34].
• Targeted Website Searching: Identify and search relevant organizational websites (e.g., environmental protection agencies, research institutes) [34].
• Consultation with Experts: Contact researchers and professionals in the field to identify ongoing or unpublished studies [34].

Experimental Protocol: Building and Executing the Search

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step methodology.

Search Strategy Formulation

• Step 1: Extract Key Concepts. Using the PICOS framework, identify the main concepts of your review question. For example: "What is the effect of neonicotinoid pesticides (I) on pollinator mortality (O) in field-based studies (S)"?
• Step 2: Generate Keyword List. For each concept, compile a comprehensive list of synonyms, related terms, and variant spellings.
  • Example: Neonicotinoids → "neonicotinoid", "imidacloprid", "clothianidin", "thiamethoxam".
  • Example: Pollinator mortality → "mortality", "death", "lethality", "survival".
• Step 3: Identify Controlled Vocabulary. In each database, identify the relevant controlled vocabulary terms (e.g., MeSH in PubMed: "Neonicotinoids", "Insects", "Mortality").
• Step 4: Combine Terms with Boolean Logic. Structure your search strategy as demonstrated below.

Figure 2: Search Term Combination Logic

Mitigating Language Bias

To prevent the systematic exclusion of non-English studies, which constitutes language bias, implement the following in your protocol:

• No Language Restrictions: Do not apply language filters in your database searches.
• Inclusion of Non-English Studies: Explicitly state in the protocol that studies in all languages will be included at the search stage.
• Translation Plan: Develop a practical plan for translating the titles and abstracts of non-English studies to inform inclusion decisions. This may involve using translation software or seeking assistance from colleagues or professional services.

Search Execution and Documentation

• Step 1: Translate the Strategy. Adapt the core search strategy for the syntax and controlled vocabulary of each database [33].
• Step 2: Run and Record Searches. Execute the search for each database and grey literature source. Record the exact search string, the date of search, and the number of records retrieved for each source. Use citation management software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero) or systematic review platforms (e.g., Covidence) to collate results and remove duplicates [33].
• Step 3: Report Transparently. The full search strategy for at least one major database (e.g., Web of Science) should be included in an appendix to the review. The screening process should be documented using a PRISMA flow diagram [33].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Systematic Searching

Table 3: Essential Digital Tools for Systematic Review Searching

Tool / Resource	Function	Application Note
Bibliographic Databases (Web of Science, Scopus, etc.)	Primary sources for published academic literature.	Strategies must be translated for each platform's unique query language and controlled vocabulary.
Reference Management Software (EndNote, Zotero)	Manages citations, PDFs, and facilitates duplicate removal.	Essential for handling the large volume of records retrieved from multiple databases.
Systematic Review Platforms (Covidence, Rayyan)	Web-based tools for collaborative screening of titles/abstracts and full-texts.	Streamlines the screening process, manages conflicts, and generates PRISMA flow diagrams.
Grey Literature Databases (OpenGrey)	Catalogues reports, theses, and other non-commercially published material.	A structured search of these sources is necessary to minimize publication bias [34].
Advanced Google Searching	Uncovers relevant documents on institutional and government websites.	Using site: and filetype: operators can target searches effectively (e.g., site:epa.gov filetype:pdf).
PRISMA Statement & Flow Diagram	Reporting standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.	Provides a checklist and a standardized flow diagram to document the study selection process [33].
Calicheamicin	Calicheamicin|DNA-Targeting ADC Payload|Research Use	Calicheamicin, a potent enediyne antitumor antibiotic causing DNA double-strand breaks. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Saframycin F	Saframycin F|Antitumor Compound|For Research	Saframycin F is a potent antitumor antibiotic for research into DNA alkylation and cancer biology. This product is for Research Use Only.

Within the framework of a thesis on systematic review methods in ecotoxicology, the step of study selection—defining and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria—is a critical determinant of the review's validity and reliability. Ecotoxicology systematically investigates the effects of toxic chemicals on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, examining impacts from the individual to the community level [8]. This field inherently deals with a complex tapestry of diverse taxa (from invertebrates and fish to terrestrial wildlife) and multiple biomes, making the establishment of robust, pre-defined eligibility criteria more challenging, and more crucial, than in many other disciplines [36]. A poorly defined selection process can introduce bias, threaten the transparency of the synthesis, and ultimately undermine the utility of the review for regulators and researchers [37] [36]. This protocol provides detailed application notes for navigating these complexities, ensuring a systematic and objective study selection process.

Defining Eligibility Criteria for Ecotoxicological Contexts

The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) framework, or its ecotoxicological adaptation PECO/T (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome/Time), is the cornerstone for developing a focused research question and corresponding eligibility criteria [3] [38]. In ecotoxicology, these elements require careful consideration to handle the field's diversity.

• Population: Criteria must specify the relevant taxa and life stages (e.g., freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates, early life stages of salmonid fish). Biome and habitat (e.g., temperate forest soils, coral reefs) should be defined using explicit classifications (e.g., FAO biome system, specific soil types). Considerations of organism sex, age, and health status may also be relevant [39] [40].
• Exposure/Intervention: Define the chemical stressor(s) of interest, including specific compounds or classes. Pre-specify requirements for exposure characterization, such as measured (not just nominal) concentrations, route of exposure (dietary, waterborne), and duration (acute vs. chronic) [36].
• Comparator: The comparator is typically an unexposed control group or a group exposed to a reference level of the stressor. Criteria should state what constitutes an acceptable control for the included study designs [38].
• Outcomes: Specify the measured endpoints eligible for inclusion. These can range from molecular and biochemical markers (e.g., CYP1A induction) to physiological and behavioral responses (e.g., reduced growth, altered swimming behavior) and population-level effects (e.g., mortality, reproductive output) [36]. Ecotoxicological systematic reviews may prioritize outcomes with ecological relevance, such as behavior, which is directly linked to individual fitness and population dynamics [36].
• Study Designs: Determine which designs are eligible (e.g., randomized controlled trials, laboratory experiments, field observational studies, case studies). For certain review questions, such as assessing rare adverse outcomes or effects of new contaminants, high-quality case reports or case series may be included if they are well-documented and scientifically rigorous [38].

Table 1: Exemplar Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for an Ecotoxicology Systematic Review

Category	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Population	Freshwater fish species; Laboratory-reared or wild-caught juveniles/adults.	Marine or brackish water fish; Embryonic or larval stages.
Exposure	Laboratory-controlled waterborne exposure to heavy metal mixtures (e.g., Cd, Pb, Zn); Measured concentrations required.	Studies on single metals only; Field studies with confounding stressors; Studies reporting only nominal concentrations.
Comparator	Unexposed control group or solvent-control group.	Studies without a control group; Studies using an inappropriate reference group.
Outcomes	Sublethal behavioral endpoints (e.g., locomotor activity, foraging, social behavior).	Studies reporting only lethal endpoints (e.g., LC50) or solely biochemical markers.
Study Design	Primary laboratory experimental studies published in peer-reviewed literature.	Review articles, commentaries, modeling studies without primary data.

A Protocol for Managing Taxonomic and Biome Diversity

The following workflow provides a step-by-step guide for implementing the study selection process, specifically designed to handle the heterogeneity of ecotoxicological evidence.

Development and Piloting of Criteria

Working on the selection criteria does not start at the tail-end of a review but begins during the planning stages as the research question is developed [6].

• Draft Criteria: Based on the PECO/T framework, draft an initial set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. These should be documented in the review protocol [41] [3].
• Pilot Testing: Test the draft criteria on a random sample of abstracts and full-text articles (e.g., 20-30). This is critical for identifying ambiguities in taxonomy, exposure definitions, or outcome measures [42].
• Calibrate and Refine: The review team should screen the pilot sample independently and then meet to discuss discrepancies. The criteria must be refined iteratively until a high level of inter-rater reliability is achieved. This process ensures the criteria are neither too broad, risking superficial findings, nor too narrow, risking the exclusion of pertinent evidence [41] [39].

Implementation of the Selection Process

A transparent and reproducible selection process is mandatory. This process is often managed using systematic review software, which can automatically highlight discrepancies between reviewers [42].

• Initial Screening: Two or more reviewers independently screen the titles and abstracts of all retrieved records against the eligibility criteria. Studies that clearly do not meet the criteria are excluded. The reason for exclusion should be recorded [42].
• Full-Text Assessment: The full text of all potentially relevant studies is retrieved. The same reviewers then independently assess these full texts against the pre-defined criteria. The inclusion of multiple taxa and endpoints common in ecotoxicology makes this a meticulous step requiring careful attention to detail [40].
• Conflict Resolution: Discrepancies between reviewers are resolved through discussion. If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer or arbitrator makes the final decision [42]. This practice is essential to prevent selection bias and enhance the reliability of the final review [41].
• Documenting the Process: The entire selection flow is documented using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. This provides a transparent account of the number of studies included and excluded at each stage, ensuring the replicability of the review [3] [38].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagent Solutions for Study Selection

Table 2: Essential Tools for Managing Study Selection in Systematic Reviews

Tool / Resource	Function in Study Selection
Reference Management Software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)	Manages and de-duplicates bibliographic records retrieved from database searches.
Systematic Review Automation Tools (e.g., DistillerSR)	Platforms designed to streamline the screening process, facilitating dual-independent review, conflict resolution, and maintaining an audit trail [6] [41].
Covidence	A web-based tool that manages the entire screening and data extraction process, automatically highlighting conflicts between reviewers for resolution [42].
PRISMA Flow Diagram	A standardized flowchart for reporting the study selection process, enhancing transparency and reproducibility [3] [38].
PICO/PECO Framework	A structured method to define the review question and corresponding eligibility criteria, ensuring the research scope is appropriately targeted [3] [38].
Ezomycin A1	Ezomycin A1, CAS:39422-19-0, MF:C26H38N8O15S, MW:734.7 g/mol
Basidalin

In ecotoxicology, where the evidence base spans a vast array of species, ecosystems, and measured outcomes, a methodical and transparent approach to study selection is non-negotiable. By developing a detailed protocol with explicit, piloted inclusion and exclusion criteria grounded in the PECO/T framework, and by implementing a rigorous dual-reviewer process, researchers can significantly enhance the objectivity, reliability, and utility of their systematic reviews. This rigorous approach is fundamental for producing evidence-based conclusions that can effectively inform environmental risk assessment and regulatory decision-making [6] [36].

Within the context of systematic reviews in ecotoxicology research, a key component of ecological risk assessments involves developing evidence-based benchmarks to assess potential hazards to various receptors. To ensure that toxicity value development is performed using the best available science, the reliability (or inherent scientific quality) of these studies must be considered [43]. The degree of reliability can be evaluated via critical appraisal tools (CATs), although application of such methods for assessing ecotoxicological literature for toxicity value development has not been well established compared with human health assessments [43]. A comprehensive review of existing CATs revealed that there is currently no approach that considers the full range of biases that should be considered for appraisal of internal validity in ecotoxicological studies [43]. Recognizing this critical gap, the ecotoxicological study reliability (EcoSR) framework was developed to address risk of bias (RoB) for the interpretation of study reliability, building on the classic RoB assessment approach frequently applied in human health assessments while adding reliability criteria specific to ecotoxicity studies [43].

Table: EcoSR Framework Development Rationale and Key Characteristics

Aspect	Description
Primary Objective	Enhance transparency and consistency in determining study reliability for toxicity value development
Foundation	Builds on classic risk of bias assessment approaches from human health assessments
Innovation	Incorporates key criteria specific to ecotoxicity studies from existing appraisal methods
Regulatory Alignment	Emphasizes criteria used by regulatory bodies
Customization	Recommends a priori customization based on specific assessment goals
Flexibility	Can be refined and applied to a variety of chemical classes

The EcoSR Framework: Structure and Components

The EcoSR framework is composed of two primary tiers: an optional preliminary screening (Tier 1) and a full reliability assessment (Tier 2) [43]. This structured approach provides a systematic method for conducting ecotoxicity study appraisals that enhances transparency and consistency in determining study reliability. The framework outlines specific criteria for evaluating potential biases in ecotoxicological studies, though the exact criteria are not fully detailed in the available search results. The framework is designed to be flexible and can be refined and applied to a variety of chemical classes, representing a significant step towards improving the transparency and reproducibility of ecotoxicological study appraisals [43].

Table: Tier Structure of the EcoSR Framework

Tier	Purpose	Application Context	Outcome
Tier 1: Preliminary Screening	Optional initial rapid assessment	High-volume literature screening	Identification of studies warranting full assessment
Tier 2: Full Reliability Assessment	Comprehensive reliability evaluation	Final inclusion decisions for risk assessment	Detailed reliability classification with bias assessment

Experimental Protocols for Framework Implementation

Tier 1 Preliminary Screening Protocol

The Tier 1 preliminary screening serves as an initial filter to identify studies that warrant more comprehensive evaluation. While the specific criteria are not exhaustively detailed in the available literature, this phase typically involves assessing basic study quality indicators and exclusion criteria. The screening should be conducted by at least two independent reviewers to minimize bias, with procedures established a priori for resolving disagreements.

Materials and Equipment:

• Literature management software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)
• Standardized screening form
• Pre-defined eligibility criteria checklist

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Import Studies: Compile potentially relevant studies from systematic search results
• Calibration Exercise: Conduct preliminary screening on a subset (e.g., 10% of studies) to ensure consistent application of criteria among reviewers
• Independent Screening: Have at least two reviewers independently assess each study against pre-defined screening criteria
• Disagreement Resolution: Implement a third reviewer or consensus process to resolve screening disagreements
• Documentation: Record reasons for exclusion at this stage for transparency and reporting purposes

Tier 2 Full Reliability Assessment Protocol

The Tier 2 assessment constitutes the core of the EcoSR framework, involving a comprehensive evaluation of study reliability through detailed critical appraisal. This phase builds on the classic risk of bias assessment approach while incorporating ecotoxicity-specific considerations [43].

Materials and Equipment:

• Detailed critical appraisal tool customized for ecotoxicology
• Data extraction forms
• Reference management for supporting documentation

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Tool Customization: Adapt the assessment criteria based on specific assessment goals and chemical classes being evaluated
• Reviewer Training: Conduct training sessions using example studies to ensure consistent understanding and application of criteria
• Independent Assessment: Have at least two reviewers independently apply the critical appraisal tool to each study that passed Tier 1 screening
• Bias Evaluation: Systematically evaluate potential sources of bias across key study domains (e.g., experimental design, exposure characterization, endpoint measurement, reporting)
• Reliability Categorization: Classify studies according to pre-defined reliability categories (e.g., high, medium, low reliability) based on aggregate assessment
• Documentation and Justification: Record supporting rationale for reliability determinations, including specific strengths and limitations identified

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Methodological Components for EcoSR Framework Implementation

Component	Function in Reliability Assessment	Application Context
Critical Appraisal Tools (CATs)	Evaluate inherent scientific quality and risk of bias	Systematic reviews and toxicity value development
Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic (TKTD) Models	Better understand, simulate and predict toxic effects [44]	Chemical risk assessment, particularly effects on wildlife
General Unified Threshold Model of Survival (GUTS)	Provide software for environmental risk assessment of chemicals [44]	Standardized survival toxicity applications
Systematic Review Protocols	Ensure reproducible and comprehensive evidence synthesis [30]	Research prioritizing experimental studies with controlled exposure
Joint Displays	Integrate quantitative and qualitative data through visual means [45]	Mixed methods research in ecotoxicology
Fukinolic Acid	Fukinolic Acid|High-Purity Research Compound	High-purity Fukinolic Acid for research applications. Explore its use in metabolic, anti-inflammatory, and collagenase studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.
1-Methyl-2-(8E)-8-tridecenyl-4(1H)-quinolinone	1-Methyl-2-(8E)-8-tridecenyl-4(1H)-quinolinone, MF:C23H33NO, MW:339.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Application in Ecotoxicological Research Context

The EcoSR framework applies directly to various research contexts within ecotoxicology. For example, in systematic reviews aiming to estimate ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on tropical reef-building corals, the framework provides a structured approach to evaluate the reliability of included studies [30]. Similarly, in projects investigating classic and temporal mixture synergism in terrestrial ecosystems, the framework can help assess the quality of studies examining how mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals affect terrestrial invertebrates [44].

The framework also supports the development and application of ecological models for environmental risk assessment. For instance, in research focused on modelling chronic toxicity in terrestrial mammals, the EcoSR framework can help evaluate the reliability of existing laboratory toxicity studies with rats and mice used to develop and calibrate toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models [44]. This ensures that models designed to better understand, simulate and predict toxic effects of pesticides on wildlife are built on a foundation of high-quality evidence.

The EcoSR framework represents a significant advancement in the critical appraisal of ecotoxicological studies, addressing a recognized gap in ecological risk assessment methodology. By providing a structured, transparent, and consistent approach to evaluating study reliability, the framework contributes to more informed and reliable toxicity value development within the ecological sciences [43]. The flexibility of the framework allows for adaptation to various chemical classes and assessment contexts, making it a valuable tool for researchers, regulators, and industry professionals engaged in chemical risk assessment and management.

As ecotoxicology continues to evolve with emerging challenges such as chemical mixtures, nanoparticles, and climate change interactions, robust critical appraisal frameworks like EcoSR will be essential for ensuring that risk assessments are founded on the best available evidence. Future refinements to the framework will likely incorporate experience from its application across diverse research contexts and chemical classes, further enhancing its utility for the ecotoxicology research community.

Systematic review methods provide a transparent, objective, and consistent framework for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing evidence in ecotoxicology [46]. The data extraction phase is critical, transforming raw study data into a structured, reusable format that supports chemical risk assessments, regulatory decisions, and ecological research. This process involves the meticulous transfer of detailed information from primary studies into a standardized knowledgebase, following well-established controlled vocabularies to ensure data quality and interoperability [46]. The ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase (ECOTOX) exemplifies this approach, serving as the world's largest compilation of curated ecotoxicity data, with over one million test results from more than 50,000 references for over 12,000 chemicals and ecological species [46]. This protocol details the methods for extracting and managing ecotoxicity data across biological levels, from molecular to community, within a systematic review framework.

Data Extraction Workflow

The data extraction pipeline for ecotoxicological systematic reviews involves sequential stages from study identification to data entry. The following workflow diagram outlines this process, adapted from the ECOTOX pipeline which aligns with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [46].

Data Extraction Protocols by Biological Level

Molecular-Level Data Extraction

Molecular-level data provides insights into the mechanisms of toxic action and early indicators of biological effects.

Primary Extraction Endpoints:

• Gene Expression: Transcriptomic changes (up/down-regulation)
• Protein Biomarkers: Induction of stress proteins (e.g., heat shock proteins, metallothioneins)
• Oxidative Stress Markers: Lipid peroxidation, antioxidant enzyme activities
• DNA Damage: Comet assay parameters, adduct formation
• Omics Data: Metabolomic, proteomic, and transcriptomic profiles

Extraction Methodology:

• Record the biological matrix (e.g., liver tissue, gill, whole organism for small species)
• Document exposure timing relative to molecular assessment
• Extract quantitative measures (fold-change, expression levels, activity units)
• Note statistical significance and dose-response relationships
• Record methodological details: assay type, platform, normalization procedures

Controlled Vocabularies:

• Biomarker terms from the ECOTOX knowledgebase [46]
• Enzyme Commission numbers for enzymatic activities
• Gene Ontology terms for functional annotation

Organism-Level Data Extraction

Organism-level data forms the foundation of traditional ecotoxicological testing, measuring direct effects on individual organisms.

Primary Extraction Endpoints:

• Mortality: LC50, LD50 values with confidence intervals
• Growth: Weight, length, condition indices
• Reproduction: Fecundity, egg production, hatch success
• Development: Morphological abnormalities, developmental stage
• Behavior: Feeding rates, locomotor activity, avoidance responses

Extraction Methodology:

• Record test organism details: species, life stage, sex, source
• Document exposure conditions: route, duration, medium, temperature
• Extract effect concentrations (ECx, LC50, NOEC, LOEC) with values and units
• Note statistical methods used for endpoint calculation
• Record control responses and any solvent or carrier effects

Controlled Vocabularies:

• Standardized species nomenclature (Integrated Taxonomic Information System)
• Endpoint terminology consistent with ECOTOX controlled vocabulary [46]
• Exposure duration categories (acute, chronic, subchronic)

Population-Level Data Extraction

Population-level data examines effects on groups of conspecific individuals, linking individual responses to ecological consequences.

Primary Extraction Endpoints:

• Population Growth Rate: Intrinsic rate of increase, finite rate of increase
• Population Structure: Age/size class distribution, sex ratios
• Abundance Estimates: Density, census data through time
• Vital Rates: Survival, birth, and death rates
• Population Viability: Extinction risk, recovery potential

Extraction Methodology:

• Record population parameters measured and measurement units
• Document spatial and temporal scales of the study
• Extract pre- and post-exposure comparisons where available
• Note density-dependent effects and interactions
• Record modeling approaches used to estimate population parameters

Controlled Vocabularies:

• Population parameter terms from ecological literature
• Spatial scale descriptors (microcosm, mesocosm, field population)
• Time scale categories (generations, specific durations)

Community-Level Data Extraction

Community-level data assesses the impacts of toxicants on multiple species and their interactions, providing insights into ecosystem-level effects.

Primary Extraction Endpoints:

• Species Richness: Number of taxa present
• Species Diversity: Indices (Shannon, Simpson)
• Community Composition: Relative abundance, presence/absence
• Trophic Structure: Feeding guild composition, food web metrics
• Functional Diversity: Trait distributions, functional group composition

Extraction Methodology:

• Record sampling methods and effort (e.g., number of replicates, sampling duration)
• Document taxonomic identification resolution and methods
• Extract diversity indices with formulas used for calculation
• Note spatial and temporal community dynamics
• Record abiotic covariates that may influence community responses

Controlled Vocabularies:

• Standardized taxonomic classifications
• Functional trait classifications
• Ecosystem and habitat descriptors

Structured Data Tables for Ecotoxicological Data

Table 1: Data Extraction Fields for All Biological Levels

Category	Extraction Field	Data Type	Description	Examples
Study Identification	Citation	Text	Complete reference	Author, year, journal
	Study ID	Numeric	Internal tracking number	2023-001
Chemical Information	Chemical Name	Text	Standardized name	Copper, Chlorpyrifos
	CAS RN	Text	Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number	7440-50-8
	Purity	Numeric	Chemical purity percentage	95%, >99%
Test Organism	Species	Text	Binomial nomenclature	Daphnia magna
	Life Stage	Text	Developmental stage	Neonate, adult
	Source	Text	Origin of organisms	Laboratory culture, field collection
Exposure Conditions	Duration	Numeric + Units	Length of exposure	48 h, 21 d
	Route	Text	Exposure pathway	Waterborne, dietary
	Medium	Text	Test medium	Freshwater, soil
Experimental Design	Test Type	Text	Study design	Static, flow-through
	Replicates	Numeric	Number of replicates per treatment	4, 10
	Control Type	Text	Negative/solvent control	Negative, solvent
Results	Endpoint	Text	Measured response	Mortality, growth
	Effect Value	Numeric + Units	Quantitative result	5.2 mg/L, 25% reduction
	Statistical Measures	Text	Variability metrics	Standard deviation, standard error

Table 2: Biological Level-Specific Extraction Fields

Biological Level	Specialized Fields	Required Metrics	Statistical Outputs
Molecular	Biomarker Type	Fold-change	Significance (p-value)
	Molecular Pathway	Activity units	Dose-response curve
	Analytical Platform	Expression level	Correlation coefficients
Organism	Effect Type (Lethal/Sublethal)	EC/LC/IC values	Confidence intervals
	Response Measurement	NOEC/LOEC	Time to effect
	Organ System	Behavioral score	LOEC/NOEC determination
Population	Population Parameter	Growth rate (r)	Projection matrix
	Demographic Rate	Birth/death rate	Elasticity analysis
	Density Measure	Individuals/area	Trend analysis
Community	Diversity Metric	Richness, evenness	Multivariate statistics
	Composition Measure	Similarity indices	Ordination coordinates
	Functional Measure	Trait distribution	Network metrics

Data Management and Curation Protocols

Quality Assurance and Control Procedures

Systematic Review Alignment: The ECOTOX knowledgebase implements procedures consistent with standardized guidelines for systematic reviews, including transparent literature searching, acquisition, and curation [46]. The following diagram illustrates the quality assurance workflow for extracted data.

Quality Control Steps:

• Chemical Verification: Confirm chemical identity using CAS Registry Numbers and standardized nomenclature [46]
• Species Verification: Validate taxonomic classification using authoritative sources [46]
• Unit Conversion: Standardize all measurements to SI units where applicable
• Range Checking: Identify biologically implausible values through automated filters
• Consistency Assessment: Ensure internal consistency across related data points

Data Interoperability and FAIR Principles

The ECOTOX knowledgebase has been redesigned to enhance the accessibility and reusability of data following the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) [46]. Implementation includes:

• Structured Data Export: Customizable outputs for use in external applications [46]
• Cross-Reference Linking: Interoperability with chemical and toxicity databases and tools [46]
• Standardized Formats: Support for common data exchange formats
• Application Programming Interfaces (APIs): Programmatic access to curated data

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Ecotoxicology Research

Category	Item/Reagent	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Reference Materials	Certified Reference Standards	Quality assurance for chemical analysis	Certified concentrations, matrix-matched
	Control Sediments/Solis	Baseline for sediment/soil toxicity tests	Characterization of physical/chemical parameters
	Reference Toxicants	Laboratory quality control	KCl, CuSOâ‚„, SDS for specific test organisms
Biological Materials	Cultured Test Organisms	Standardized toxicity testing	Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas
	Cryopreserved Cells	In vitro toxicology assays	Fish cell lines (RTgill-W1, RTL-W1)
	Enzyme Kits	Biomarker measurement	Acetylcholinesterase, EROD activity assays
Analytical Tools	Solid Phase Extraction	Sample concentration and cleanup	Cartridges for specific chemical classes
	Passive Sampling Devices	Time-integrated exposure measurement	POCIS, SPMD for organic contaminants
	Biosensors	Rapid toxicity screening	Whole-cell or enzyme-based detection systems
Data Management	Laboratory Information Management Systems	Sample tracking and data organization	Customizable fields for ecotoxicology data
	Taxonomic Databases	Species identification and verification	Integrated Taxonomic Information System
	Chemical Databases	Chemical property and structure information	EPA CompTox Chemistry Dashboard [47]
RD3-0028	RD3-0028, MF:C8H8S2, MW:168.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Ici 153110	Ici 153110, CAS:87164-90-7, MF:C11H11N3O, MW:201.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Implementation and Application

The data extraction and management protocols described support multiple applications in environmental research and chemical regulation:

Risk Assessment Applications:

• Derivation of toxicity reference values for chemical safety assessments [46]
• Development of species sensitivity distributions for protective concentration thresholds [46]
• Testing and validation of quantitative structure-activity relationship models [46]

Research Applications:

• Identification of data gaps for targeted testing [46]
• Meta-analysis of chemical effects across studies and species
• Development and validation of new approach methodologies [46]

The systematic approach to data extraction ensures consistency and transparency, enhancing the reliability of assessments and facilitating the integration of new data sources as testing paradigms evolve toward greater use of high-throughput in vitro assays and computational modeling [46].

Within the framework of systematic review methods in ecotoxicology research, data synthesis represents a critical phase for translating extracted study findings into coherent, evidence-based conclusions. This stage involves rigorous processes to interpret and combine results from multiple studies, which often exhibit heterogeneity in design, populations, exposures, and outcomes. In ecotoxicology, where experimental conditions and model organisms vary considerably, selecting appropriate synthesis methods is paramount for producing reliable, actionable evidence for environmental risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. This protocol outlines comprehensive approaches for both narrative synthesis and meta-analysis, specifically addressing the challenge of heterogeneous data, and provides ecotoxicology researchers with standardized methodologies for evidence integration.

Theoretical Foundations of Data Synthesis

Data synthesis in systematic reviews encompasses a spectrum of methodologies, from qualitative integration to quantitative statistical combination. Understanding the fundamental distinctions between approaches ensures appropriate methodological selection aligned with review objectives and data characteristics.

Systematic Review vs. Meta-Analysis: A systematic review is a comprehensive, structured research method that identifies, evaluates, and summarizes all available evidence on a specific research question using predefined protocols to minimize bias [48]. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a statistical procedure that combines numerical results from multiple similar studies to calculate an overall effect size, providing greater precision and statistical power [48]. While a systematic review asks "What does all the evidence say?", a meta-analysis asks more specifically "What is the mathematical average effect across all studies, and how confident can we be in this number?" [48].

Defining the 'PICO for Each Synthesis': A crucial planning stage involves defining the precise Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome for each synthesis within the review [49]. While the 'PICO for the review' determines study eligibility, the 'PICO for each synthesis' specifies which studies will be grouped for specific analyses, enabling more transparent decisions about grouping similar studies and facilitating qualitative synthesis of characteristics needed to interpret results [49]. For ecotoxicology reviews, this might involve separate syntheses for different taxonomic groups (e.g., fish vs. invertebrates), exposure pathways (e.g., aqueous vs. dietary), or outcome measures (e.g., mortality vs. reproductive effects).

Decision Framework for Synthesis Approach

The decision between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis depends on the nature, compatibility, and quality of the available evidence. The following workflow provides a systematic approach for selecting the most appropriate synthesis method, particularly relevant for ecotoxicological data known for its heterogeneity.

Decision Criteria Elaboration:

• Sufficient Compatible Numerical Data: Meta-analysis requires studies with compatible statistical outcomes (e.g., means with standard deviations, risk ratios, odds ratios) that can be mathematically combined. While technically possible with just two studies, the decision is influenced by differences in study design, exposure assessment, outcome measurement, and population characteristics [50] [51].

• Assessment of Heterogeneity: Clinical or methodological heterogeneity may be too high when studies differ substantially in fundamental design, experimental systems, exposure characterization, or outcome measurement approaches. This determination remains somewhat subjective without widely accepted quantitative measures, but should consider whether differences likely introduce bias or limit meaningful interpretation of a pooled effect [50] [51].

• Essential Information Availability: To combine study results, measurements of association estimates from individual studies and standard errors or 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are essential. Missing essential information may require contacting corresponding authors before proceeding with meta-analysis [50] [51].

Protocol for Narrative Synthesis

When meta-analysis is inappropriate due to heterogeneity, missing data, or limited studies, narrative synthesis provides a structured, transparent approach to evidence integration. The following protocol outlines a rigorous methodology for qualitative synthesis.

Grouping Studies for Synthesis

The first step involves organizing studies into logical groups based on predefined characteristics relevant to the research question. The table below outlines common grouping strategies for ecotoxicology reviews.

Table 1: Study Grouping Strategies for Narrative Synthesis in Ecotoxicology

Grouping Rationale	Examples in Ecotoxicology	Application Considerations
Population Characteristics	Test species (daphnids, fish, algae), life stage (embryo, larval, adult), sex	Consider taxonomic relatedness and biological relevance to exposure response
Exposure/Intervention	Chemical class (pesticides, heavy metals, EDCs), exposure route (aqueous, dietary, sediment), exposure duration (acute, chronic)	Group by similar modes of action or pharmacokinetic properties
Outcome Assessment	Mortality, reproduction, growth, biochemical markers, behavioral endpoints	Consider functional relationships between endpoints (e.g., apical vs. suborganismal)
Study Design	Laboratory vs. field studies, controlled vs. observational, test guidelines followed	Assess potential for confounding and bias across different designs
Risk of Bias	Low, moderate, or high risk of bias based on quality assessment	Transparency critical when excluding high-risk studies from primary conclusions

Synthesis Methodology

After grouping studies, employ these systematic approaches to identify patterns and relationships in the evidence:

• Create Structured Tables: Develop tables organized by grouping variables to facilitate comparison across studies. For example, create separate tables for laboratory versus field studies or for different chemical classes [50].

• Standardize Effect Direction: Present consistent direction of effects across studies (e.g., always "increased risk" or "decreased survival") to enable cross-study comparison. Convert effect estimates where possible (e.g., odds ratios to standardized mean differences) to enhance comparability [50].

• Implement Graphical Summaries: Utilize visual displays such as effect direction plots, harvest plots, or forest plots without pooled estimates to illustrate patterns and relationships in the data [49] [50]. These graphical approaches help identify trends that might be obscured in textual summaries alone.

• Apply Statistical Summaries: Even without meta-analysis, calculate descriptive statistics across studies, such as total numbers of organisms tested, ranges of effect sizes, or proportions of studies showing statistically significant effects in particular directions [50].

Reporting Guidelines

Adhere to structured reporting standards to ensure transparency and completeness:

• Structured Reporting: Follow the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines to ensure transparent reporting of narrative synthesis methods and findings [49] [50].

• Uniform Presentation: Maintain consistent reporting style throughout the results section, clearly explaining grouping rationales and presenting findings systematically according to predefined groups [50].

• Objective Interpretation: Discuss methodological strengths and limitations of the reviewed evidence, including levels of adjustment across studies, heterogeneity that precluded quantitative synthesis, and risks of bias that might affect conclusions [50].

Protocol for Meta-Analysis

When studies are sufficiently homogeneous and provide compatible effect measures, meta-analysis provides a powerful statistical approach for estimating overall effects with greater precision. The following protocol outlines a rigorous methodology for quantitative synthesis.

Pre-Synthesis Planning

• Define Analysis Framework: Specify the PICO for each meta-analysis, including precise definitions of which studies will be included in each quantitative synthesis [49].

• Select Effect Measure: Choose appropriate effect measures based on the type of data (e.g., standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes, risk ratios or odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes).

• Plan Heterogeneity Investigation: Pre-specify potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., test species, exposure duration, study quality) to explore in subgroup analyses or meta-regression.

Statistical Analysis Procedures

• Model Selection: Choose between fixed-effect and random-effects models based on assumptions about the underlying effect distribution. Random-effects models are generally more appropriate for ecotoxicological data due to expected methodological and biological heterogeneity [52].

• Effect Size Calculation: Compute effect sizes and confidence intervals for each study, ensuring appropriate statistical transformations where necessary.

• Pooling and Weighting: Combine effect sizes using appropriate statistical methods, weighting individual studies by precision (typically inverse variance weighting) [48].

• Heterogeneity Quantification: Assess statistical heterogeneity using I² statistic (percentage of total variation due to heterogeneity rather than chance) and Cochran's Q test [52] [50].

Investigation of Heterogeneity and Bias

• Subgroup Analysis: Conduct planned subgroup analyses to explore whether effect sizes differ systematically across study characteristics (e.g., test species, exposure duration, study quality) [48].

• Meta-Regression: When sufficient studies are available, employ meta-regression to investigate the relationship between continuous study characteristics (e.g., exposure concentration, organism size) and effect size.

• Sensitivity Analysis: Perform sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings to methodological decisions, including the impact of excluding studies with high risk of bias or outlier effect sizes [52].

• Publication Bias Assessment: Evaluate potential for publication bias using funnel plots, Egger's test, or other statistical methods, with appropriate caution in interpretation when heterogeneity is present [48].

Table 2: Key Statistical Measures in Meta-Analysis of Ecotoxicology Data

Statistical Measure	Interpretation	Application Consideration
I² Statistic	Percentage of total variability due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error: 0%-40% low; 30%-60% moderate; 50%-90% substantial; 75%-100% considerable	Preferred over Cochran's Q for quantifying heterogeneity as it is less dependent on number of studies
Tau² (τ²)	Estimate of between-study variance in random-effects models	Provides absolute measure of heterogeneity; useful for predicting range of true effects
Prediction Interval	Range within which the true effect of a new study is expected to fall	Particularly valuable in heterogeneous ecotoxicology data for application to new situations
Q Statistic	Cochran's Q tests null hypothesis that all studies share a common effect size	Has low power with small number of studies and high power with many studies

Visualization Approaches for Heterogeneous Data

Effective graphical displays enhance interpretation and communication of both narrative syntheses and meta-analyses, particularly when dealing with heterogeneous data.

Forest Plots: The cornerstone of meta-analysis visualization, forest plots display effect sizes and confidence intervals for individual studies alongside pooled estimates, allowing visual assessment of precision and variability [52]. Modifications for heterogeneous data include using different symbols or colors to denote study characteristics and presenting separate pooled estimates for predefined subgroups.

Funnel Plots: Used primarily to assess publication bias, funnel plots scatter effect estimates against measures of precision (typically standard error) [53]. Asymmetry in the plot may indicate selective publication, though heterogeneous effects can also create asymmetry.

Harvest Plots: Particularly valuable for narrative synthesis of complex evidence, harvest plots use bars or symbols above study characteristics to visually summarize patterns across studies, effectively displaying which study types show particular effect directions without requiring quantitative pooling [49].

Galbraith Plots: Assist in visualizing heterogeneity by plotting standardized effect sizes against precision, with studies falling outside confidence bands indicating potential outliers or important sources of heterogeneity.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Data Synthesis in Ecotoxicology Systematic Reviews

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Notes
R metafor Package	Comprehensive statistical package for meta-analysis and meta-regression	Handles complex data structures common in ecotoxicology; enables multivariate models
SWiM Reporting Guidelines	Structured methodology for reporting synthesis without meta-analysis	Ensures transparent reporting when statistical pooling is not appropriate
Risk of Bias Tools	Standardized instruments for assessing methodological quality of primary studies	ROBIS for systematic reviews; specific tools for experimental ecotoxicology studies under development
GRADE for Ecotoxicology	Framework for rating confidence in synthesized evidence	Adapted from clinical medicine; considers risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias
PICO Framework	Structured approach for defining review questions and synthesis groupings	Essential for planning "PICO for each synthesis" before data extraction
Visualization Software	Tools for creating forest, funnel, and harvest plots	R ggplot2, Python matplotlib, or specialized packages like forestplot enable customized visualizations

Application to Ecotoxicology Research

Ecotoxicology systematic reviews present unique challenges for data synthesis, including diverse test systems, varied exposure scenarios, and multiple measurement endpoints. The following applications illustrate how these protocols address ecotoxicology-specific considerations:

Handling Multiple Test Species: Define the PICO for synthesis to either group biologically similar species or conduct separate syntheses for major taxonomic groups, acknowledging potential physiological differences in chemical response. Use subgroup analysis or meta-regression to explore effect modification by species characteristics.

Addressing Exposure Variability: Group studies by exposure duration (acute vs. chronic), route (aqueous vs. dietary), or metric (measured vs. nominal concentrations) in narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, use these as covariates in meta-regression models to account for exposure-related heterogeneity.

Integrating Multiple Endpoints: Recognize hierarchical relationships between endpoints (e.g., biochemical responses → physiological effects → population outcomes) and either synthesize separately or use multivariate approaches that account for correlation between endpoints measured in the same organisms.

Bridging Laboratory and Field Studies: Acknowledge fundamental methodological differences while seeking patterns that transcend study systems. Use narrative synthesis to compare direction and consistency of effects across study types, or employ subgroup analysis in meta-analysis to quantitatively compare effect sizes.

Overcoming Common Challenges: Ensuring Quality and Efficiency in Your Ecotoxicology Review

Heterogeneity is a fundamental characteristic of ecological systems, encompassing the inherent diversity and variability within and between populations, communities, and ecosystems. In ecotoxicology, this heterogeneity presents significant challenges for synthesizing research findings across different species and environments. Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology must account for dynamic heterogeneity—where spatial and temporal variations act as both drivers and outcomes of ecological processes influenced by toxic chemicals [54]. Environmental heterogeneity manifests in multiple dimensions: spatial variability (differences in habitat types, soil composition, and microclimates), temporal variability (seasonal changes and climate fluctuations), and biological variability (diversity within species populations and genetic diversity) [55]. Understanding these facets is crucial for developing robust protocols that can accurately combine studies from disparate ecological contexts while accounting for the complex interactions between toxic chemicals and ecosystem components.

The integration of heterogeneity concepts into ecotoxicological systematic reviews represents a paradigm shift from regarding variability as statistical noise to recognizing it as biologically significant information. This approach aligns with the broader thesis that systematic review methods must evolve to incorporate ecological complexity rather than simply controlling for it. The dynamic heterogeneity framework emphasizes that heterogeneous arrays are outcomes of prior states that subsequently drive future system states through interactions with processes and events [54]. This conceptual foundation provides the theoretical basis for the protocols and application notes detailed in this document, which aim to equip researchers with practical strategies for addressing heterogeneity throughout the evidence synthesis process.

Conceptual Framework and Typology of Heterogeneity

Defining Heterogeneity in Ecotoxicological Contexts

Heterogeneity in ecotoxicology systematic reviews extends beyond statistical variation in effect sizes to encompass substantive differences in how ecosystems and species respond to toxicant exposure. Urban ecosystems, for instance, demonstrate extraordinary spatial heterogeneity that influences how toxic chemicals affect populations, communities, and terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems [54] [8]. This heterogeneity can be categorized into three primary dimensions:

• Spatial Heterogeneity: Differences in habitat types, soil composition, microclimates, and physical structures across landscapes that modify toxicant exposure and effects [55]. For example, a forest ecosystem contains distinct canopy, understory, and forest floor microenvironments, each with unique living conditions that influence chemical fate and biological sensitivity [55].

• Temporal Heterogeneity: Seasonal changes, climate fluctuations, and temporal shifts in ecological processes that alter toxicant bioavailability and organism vulnerability over time [55]. Temporal dynamics are particularly important when combining studies conducted over different timeframes or under varying environmental conditions.

• Biological Heterogeneity: Diversity within species populations, genetic diversity, and the distribution of flora and fauna that create differential sensitivity to toxicants [55]. This includes variations in phenotypic plasticity, genetic adaptation, and behavioral responses that influence how species cope with chemical stressors.

These heterogeneity dimensions interact complexly in ecological systems, creating mosaics of varied habitats that provide refuge and resources for a wide range of species [55]. The dynamic heterogeneity framework elucidates how these social and ecological heterogeneities interact and how they together act as both an outcome of past interactions and a driver of future heterogeneity and system functions [54].

Quantitative Assessment of Heterogeneity

Biological diversity within heterogeneous systems can be quantified using indices such as the Shannon Index:

H′ = -∑(pi ln pi) for i = 1 to S

Where:

• S is the total number of species
• p_i is the proportion of individuals found in the i-th species [55]

This formula underscores how distribution and abundance contribute to an ecosystem's heterogeneity and its overall functionality. Similarly, environmental change in heterogeneous systems can be modeled as a function of multiple variables:

E(x,y,t) = f(T(x,y,t), S(x,y), H(x,y,t))

Where:

• E(x,y,t) represents environmental change at a given location and time
• T(x,y,t) represents temperature variables
• S(x,y) represents soil properties
• H(x,y,t) represents hydrological variables [55]

This mathematical representation illustrates that environmental perturbations are not uniform; they vary with the underlying heterogeneity of the ecosystem, which must be accounted for when combining studies across different systems.

Table 1: Dimensions of Heterogeneity in Ecotoxicological Systematic Reviews

Dimension	Manifestation	Impact on Ecotoxicology	Measurement Approaches
Spatial	Differential distribution of vegetation structure, hotspots of nutrient processing, patchy soil organic matter [54]	Modifies exposure pathways and chemical bioavailability; creates source-sink dynamics for contaminants	Remote sensing, GIS mapping, spatial autocorrelation statistics
Temporal	Seasonal changes, climate fluctuations, successional processes [55]	Alters toxicant degradation rates and organism susceptibility across timeframes	Time-series analysis, seasonal decomposition, longitudinal modeling
Biological	Species richness differences, genetic diversity, functional trait variation [54] [55]	Creates differential sensitivity and adaptive capacity to chemical stressors	Biodiversity indices, population genetics, phylogenetic comparative methods
Methodological	Variation in experimental designs, exposure systems, endpoint measurements [20]	Introduces non-biological variation that confounds cross-study comparisons	Quality assessment tools, sensitivity analysis, moderator analysis

Experimental Protocols for Addressing Heterogeneity

Protocol 1: Systematic Search and Screening with Heterogeneity Considerations

Objective: To identify relevant ecotoxicology studies while explicitly documenting sources of heterogeneity during the screening process.

Materials and Equipment:

• Bibliographic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, etc.)
• Systematic review management software (e.g., Rayyan, Covidence)
• Data extraction forms customized for heterogeneity documentation

Procedure:

• Develop a Search Strategy:

  • Create comprehensive search strings combining terms for toxicants (e.g., "chemical contaminants," "pesticides," "emerging contaminants"), ecosystems (e.g., "freshwater," "marine," "terrestrial," "urban"), and species (e.g., "fish," "invertebrate," "amphibian").
  • Include methodological terms related to heterogeneity (e.g., "spatial variation," "temporal variation," "interspecific difference").
  • Search multiple databases without language restrictions to minimize geographic bias.

• Screen Studies with Heterogeneity Documentation:

  • Implement a two-stage screening process (title/abstract followed by full-text).
  • At each screening stage, document potential sources of heterogeneity using a predefined coding scheme that includes ecosystem type, species characteristics, methodological approaches, and spatial/temporal factors.
  • Resolve screening conflicts through dual independent review with third-party adjudication.

• Extract Heterogeneity-Relevant Data:

  • Use a standardized data extraction form to capture study characteristics that contribute to heterogeneity (see Table 2).
  • Extract quantitative data on effect sizes, variability measures (standard deviations, confidence intervals), and moderating variables.
  • Document methodological details that may introduce bias, including chemical analysis methods (e.g., non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry) [20] and bioassay approaches.

• Assemble Heterogeneity Profile:

  • Create a summary table for each study documenting key heterogeneity dimensions.
  • Classify studies according to their ecosystem context, species characteristics, and methodological approaches.

Table 2: Data Extraction Elements for Heterogeneity Assessment

Category	Specific Elements to Extract	Purpose in Heterogeneity Assessment
Study Context	Geographic location, ecosystem type, habitat characteristics, climate zone	Identifies spatial and environmental heterogeneity sources
Temporal Factors	Study duration, seasonality, year of conduct, time-sensitive exposures	Captures temporal heterogeneity in responses
Biological System	Species identity, population characteristics, genetic information, life stage	Documents biological heterogeneity in sensitivity
Methodological Approach	Exposure system, concentration measurement, endpoint measurement, statistical methods	Identifies methodological heterogeneity sources
Toxicological Data	Effect sizes, variability measures, dose-response relationships, time-to-event data	Provides quantitative basis for heterogeneity analysis

Protocol 2: Effect-Directed Analysis (EDA) and Non-Targeted Analysis (NTA) Integration

Objective: To identify specific chemical drivers of toxicity across different ecosystems and species while accounting for analytical heterogeneity.

Materials and Equipment:

• High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) systems
• Bioassay kits for relevant toxicity endpoints (estrogen, androgen, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor assays)
• Chromatography systems (reverse phase liquid chromatography, gas chromatography)
• Sample preparation equipment for solid-phase extraction

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation and Extraction:

  • Collect environmental samples from different ecosystems (water, sediment, tissue) using standardized protocols.
  • Employ comprehensive extraction methods that minimize selection bias against polar, highly polar, and ionic compounds [20].
  • Document extraction efficiency and potential compound losses for heterogeneity assessment.

• Effect-Directed Analysis (EDA):

  • Fractionate samples using liquid chromatography to separate chemical mixtures.
  • Test fractions using bioassay test batteries to identify toxic fractions.
  • Common bioassays include estrogen, androgen, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor assays, with many studies using test batteries [20].
  • Document dose-response relationships and variability in bioassay responses.

• Non-Targeted Analysis (NTA):

  • Analyze active fractions using high-resolution mass spectrometry to identify potential toxicants.
  • Process data using NTA software, acknowledging limitations in liquid chromatography data compared to gas chromatography data due to insufficient spectral library databases [20].
  • Utilize in silico prediction and retention time prediction software to address identification bottlenecks.

• Toxicity Explanation Assessment:

  • Quantify the proportion of explained toxicity by comparing identified compounds to observed effects.
  • Studies combining NTA with EDA have demonstrated substantially higher toxicity explanation (median 47% for TOXnon-target studies) compared to targeted approaches alone (median 13% for TOXtarget studies) [20].
  • Document unexplained toxicity as an indicator of methodological limitations or unknown contaminants.

• Cross-System Comparison:

  • Apply identical EDA-NTA protocols across different ecosystems and species.
  • Compare toxicity drivers and explanation rates to identify system-specific and universal toxicological patterns.
  • Account for methodological factors with potential to introduce selection bias, particularly sample extraction and chromatography technique [20].

Visualization Strategies for Heterogeneity Assessment

Hierarchical Framework for Dynamic Urban Heterogeneity

The hierarchical framework for dynamic heterogeneity theory provides a structure for understanding how social and ecological heterogeneities interact in urban systems, which can be extended to ecotoxicological contexts [54]. This framework can be visualized to enhance understanding of complex relationships.

Ecosystem Heterogeneity and Toxicant Response Pathways

This diagram illustrates how heterogeneity in ecosystem components influences the pathways through which toxicants affect biological systems, highlighting critical points for cross-study comparison.

Protocol Workflow for Heterogeneity-Aware Evidence Synthesis

This workflow diagram outlines the key steps in implementing the protocols for addressing heterogeneity when combining studies from different ecosystems and species.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Addressing Heterogeneity

Tool Category	Specific Solution	Function in Addressing Heterogeneity
Analytical Instruments	High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)	Enables non-targeted analysis to identify unknown contaminants across different ecosystems [20]
Bioassay Systems	Receptor-specific assays (estrogen, androgen, AhR)	Measures specific toxicity pathways across different species and systems [20]
Chromatography Methods	Reverse phase liquid chromatography, Gas chromatography	Separates chemical mixtures; different methods required for different compound types [20]
Statistical Software	R programming language with metafor package	Provides comprehensive tools for multivariate meta-analysis and heterogeneity quantification [56]
Data Visualization Tools	ggplot2 in R, Cytoscape, specialized bioinformatics software	Creates alternative visualization models for complex heterogeneous data [57] [56]
Spectral Libraries	Mass spectral databases, Retention time prediction software	Facilitates compound identification; current limitation for liquid chromatography data [20]
Spatial Analysis Tools	GIS software, Remote sensing data	Quantifies and visualizes spatial heterogeneity in exposure and effects [54]

Data Synthesis and Integration Strategies

Quantitative Approaches for Heterogeneity Analysis

Meta-analytical techniques for addressing heterogeneity in ecotoxicology systematic reviews require specialized statistical approaches that account for the hierarchical structure of ecological data. The following strategies have proven effective:

• Multilevel Meta-Analysis: Implement random-effects models that incorporate multiple hierarchical levels (e.g., within-study, between-study, between-ecosystem) to appropriately partition variance components. This approach acknowledges that effect sizes from the same study or ecosystem may be more similar to each other than to those from different studies or ecosystems.

• Multivariate Meta-Analysis: Apply multivariate techniques to model multiple correlated outcomes simultaneously, reducing bias from selective outcome reporting and accounting for the inherent correlation between different toxicity endpoints measured on the same experimental units.

• Meta-Regression with Ecological Moderators: Conduct moderator analyses using meta-regression to explain heterogeneity through ecological covariates such as habitat characteristics, species traits, environmental conditions, and methodological factors. This approach transforms heterogeneity from a statistical problem into a scientific opportunity for understanding context dependency.

• Network Meta-Analysis: Utilize network approaches when comparing multiple interventions or toxicants across studies, even when direct comparisons are unavailable in the primary literature. This method enhances the connectedness of evidence across diverse ecological contexts.

The implementation of these quantitative strategies requires careful attention to statistical assumptions, particularly regarding the distribution of random effects and the potential for correlated errors within hierarchical levels. Sensitivity analyses should explore the robustness of findings to different statistical models and heterogeneity estimation methods.

Evidence Integration Framework

Integrating evidence across heterogeneous studies requires a structured framework that explicitly addresses variability rather than suppressing it. The following integration protocol facilitates meaningful synthesis:

• Categorize Studies by Heterogeneity Dimensions: Group studies according to key heterogeneity dimensions identified in Table 1, creating subsets for separate analysis where appropriate.

• Conduct Subgroup Analyses: Perform separate syntheses for logically distinct categories (e.g., freshwater vs. marine ecosystems, acute vs. chronic exposures) to identify consistent patterns within homogeneous subgroups.

• Test for Interaction Effects: Statistically examine whether effect sizes differ significantly between subgroups, providing quantitative evidence for context-dependent toxicological responses.

• Evaluate Consistency of Effects: Assess whether direction and significance of effects remain consistent across different ecosystems and species, despite variations in magnitude.

• Develop Conceptual Models: Create evidence-based conceptual models that explain how heterogeneity dimensions modify toxicological responses, transforming observed variability into mechanistic understanding.

This integration framework aligns with the dynamic heterogeneity concept that recognizes heterogeneous arrays as both outcomes of prior interactions and drivers of future system functions [54]. By systematically addressing rather than suppressing heterogeneity, this approach enhances the ecological relevance and predictive capability of systematic reviews in ecotoxicology.

Addressing heterogeneity when combining studies from different ecosystems and species requires a paradigm shift from viewing variability as a statistical complication to recognizing it as biologically meaningful information. The protocols and application notes presented here provide a comprehensive framework for incorporating heterogeneity assessment throughout the systematic review process, from study identification through evidence synthesis and interpretation. By implementing these strategies, researchers can enhance the validity, applicability, and ecological relevance of systematic reviews in ecotoxicology, ultimately supporting more nuanced chemical risk assessments and environmental management decisions. The dynamic heterogeneity framework emphasizes that human actions and structures amplify the dynamics of heterogeneity in urban systems [54], and this understanding should inform how we design, conduct, and interpret synthetic research in ecotoxicology.

Systematic review methodology provides a transparent, methodologically rigorous, and reproducible means of summarizing available evidence on a precisely framed research question, representing a significant advancement over traditional narrative reviews in toxicological sciences [58]. In ecotoxicology, where observational studies are predominant due to the ethical and practical limitations of conducting randomized controlled trials on environmental exposures, systematic review methods have emerged as essential tools for reliable evidence synthesis [59]. The adaptation of systematic review principles to ecotoxicology addresses the field's unique challenges, including the diversity of test systems (from molecular biomarkers to whole ecosystems), the complex fate and transport of chemicals in the environment, and the need to extrapolate across multiple biological organization levels [58] [60].

The evidence-based toxicology movement has catalyzed the development of structured approaches to evaluating environmental health evidence, with systematic reviews now being applied to answer toxicological questions with greater transparency and reduced bias [58]. This methodological evolution is particularly relevant given the increasing number of chemicals in commerce and regulatory mandates requiring safety assessments for a growing number of chemical substances [46]. The systematic review process in ecotoxicology follows a structured sequence of steps, from planning and question formulation through protocol development, literature search, study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, evidence synthesis, and reporting [58].

Foundational Principles of Quality Assessment

Defining Quality and Risk of Bias in Ecotoxicology Context

In ecotoxicological assessments, quality and risk of bias evaluation refers to the process of examining primary research studies to identify factors that may systematically distort their findings away from the true effect of an exposure. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool provides a structured framework for this assessment, specifically designed for observational epidemiological studies that investigate exposure effects [59]. ROBINS-E addresses seven critical domains of bias: confounding, selection of participants, classification of exposures, departures from intended exposures, missing data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of reported results [59].

The ecotoxicological evidence base presents unique challenges for quality assessment, as noted by the National Research Council framework on chemical alternatives assessment. Ecotoxicology encompasses an "astonishing number of organisms," with nearly 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans, making comprehensive testing impossible [13]. Consequently, ecotoxicologists rely on a small set of indicator organisms and understanding of physicochemical properties that govern chemical partitioning in environments and organisms [13]. This approach necessitates careful consideration of extrapolation validity and ecological relevance when assessing study quality.

Methodological Hierarchy and Evidence Strength

The strength of ecotoxicological evidence follows a methodological hierarchy that influences quality assessment criteria. While randomized controlled trials represent the gold standard in clinical research, they are rarely feasible in ecotoxicology, making well-conducted observational studies the primary source of evidence [59]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's evaluation guidelines for ecological toxicity data establish fundamental criteria for accepting studies, including requirements that: toxic effects are related to single chemical exposure; effects are on aquatic or terrestrial plants or animals; biological effects are on live, whole organisms; concurrent environmental chemical concentrations are reported; and explicit exposure duration is specified [61].

Table 1: Fundamental Acceptance Criteria for Ecotoxicology Studies Based on EPA Guidelines

Criterion	Description	Rationale
Exposure Specificity	Toxic effects must be related to single chemical exposure	Ensures causal attribution of observed effects
Organism Relevance	Effects must be on aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species	Maintains ecological relevance to protection goals
Biological Integrity	Effects must be on live, whole organisms	Preserves biological complexity and organism-level responses
Exposure Quantification	Concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose must be reported	Enables concentration-response characterization and risk assessment
Temporal Specification	Explicit duration of exposure must be reported	Allows comparison across studies and temporal response assessment

ROBINS-E Tool: Structured Approach for Bias Assessment

Domain-Based Evaluation Framework

The ROBINS-E tool employs a domain-based approach to risk of bias assessment, mirroring methodologies developed for clinical studies (RoB 2.0 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies of interventions) but adapted specifically for environmental exposure studies [59]. This tool guides reviewers through seven bias domains using signaling questions that gather critical information about study design, conduct, and reporting. For each domain, reviewers make three key judgments: risk of bias level (low, some concerns, high, or very high), predicted direction of bias, and whether the risk of bias is sufficient to threaten conclusions about exposure effects [59].

The confounding domain addresses whether there was control for important confounding variables—factors that influence both the exposure and outcome. In ecotoxicology, relevant confounders might include co-exposure to other contaminants, environmental conditions (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen), or organism-specific factors (age, sex, nutritional status). The selection of participants domain evaluates whether selection of study subjects (organisms, populations, or communities) introduced bias, such as through differential loss to follow-up or selective inclusion based on characteristics associated with both exposure and outcome [59].

Application to Ecotoxicological Study Designs

The exposure classification domain assesses whether exposure measurement was sufficiently accurate, including consideration of temporal aspects between exposure assessment and outcome measurement. For ecotoxicology studies, this domain is particularly relevant given challenges in quantifying environmental exposures, which may vary spatially and temporally. The departures from intended exposures domain examines whether subjects (organisms) were exposed to the intended levels of contaminants or whether there were deviations from planned exposure regimes that might introduce bias [59].

The missing data domain evaluates the proportion and handling of missing outcome data, while the outcome measurement domain assesses whether methods of outcome assessment were comparable across exposure groups and whether outcome assessors were blinded to exposure status. Finally, the selection of reported results domain examines whether the reported result was selected from multiple measurements or analyses of the same outcome, raising concerns about selective reporting [59].

Quality Assessment Criteria for Experimental Ecotoxicology

Internal Validity Factors

Experimental ecotoxicology studies, particularly laboratory-based toxicity tests, require assessment of specific internal validity factors that may introduce bias. The EPA's evaluation guidelines specify additional acceptance criteria beyond the fundamental requirements, including: toxicology information for a chemical of concern to the assessment; publication in English; presentation as a full article; public availability; primary data source (not secondary summary); reported calculated endpoints; comparison to acceptable controls; reported study location (laboratory vs. field); and verified test species identification [61].

Control group appropriateness represents a critical quality consideration. Studies must include concurrent control groups that experience identical conditions except for the exposure of interest. Historical controls may provide supplementary information but cannot replace concurrent controls. The exposure verification criterion requires that studies document methods for quantifying and verifying exposure concentrations throughout the test duration, particularly important for volatile, degradable, or adsorbent compounds whose actual exposure concentrations may deviate significantly from nominal values [61].

Endpoint Reliability and Ecological Relevance

Endpoint selection and measurement significantly influence study quality assessment. Regulatory agencies typically prioritize apical endpoints connected to survival, development, growth, and reproduction over mechanistic or biomarker responses, unless the latter are clearly linked to adverse outcomes at higher biological levels [13]. The National Research Council's framework on chemical alternatives assessment notes that ecotoxicology literature heavily emphasizes aquatic systems, particularly freshwater organisms, due to historical discharge practices, creating potential gaps in terrestrial ecotoxicity data [13].

Dose-response characterization quality depends on appropriate spacing of test concentrations, sufficient replication at each concentration, and statistical approaches that adequately model the response relationship. Studies that include positive controls (known toxicants) demonstrate responsiveness of the test system, while solvent controls account for potential vehicle effects when test compounds require solubilization. The test duration must align with the endpoint measured, with acute tests typically assessing mortality over shorter periods (24-96 hours for many aquatic organisms) and chronic tests evaluating growth, reproduction, or development over longer periods (often spanning significant portions of the organism's lifecycle) [60].

Table 2: Quality Assessment Criteria for Experimental Ecotoxicology Studies

Assessment Category	High Quality Indicators	Potential Bias Sources
Experimental Design	Randomized exposure assignment, appropriate control groups, blinding	Non-random allocation, inadequate controls, unblinded outcome assessment
Exposure Characterization	Verified concentrations, measurement of metabolites, consideration of chemical form	Nominal concentrations only, lack of analytical verification, ignoring relevant transformation products
Endpoint Selection	Ecologically relevant apical endpoints, standardized measurement protocols	Surrogate endpoints without established ecological relevance, non-standardized methods
Statistical Analysis	Appropriate model selection, adequate replication, consideration of censored data	Unit of analysis errors, insufficient power, inappropriate statistical tests
Reporting Completeness	Complete methodology description, raw data availability, conflict of interest disclosure	Selective outcome reporting, insufficient methodological detail, undisclosed conflicts

Quality Assessment Criteria for Observational Ecotoxicology

Field Studies and Environmental Monitoring

Observational ecotoxicology studies, including field monitoring and mesocosm experiments, present distinct quality considerations related to their inherent complexity and reduced control over environmental conditions. The ROBINS-E tool is particularly valuable for these study designs, as it addresses confounding control and exposure classification challenges that are magnified in field settings [59]. Quality assessment must evaluate how well studies account for natural environmental variability in factors that may modify exposure-response relationships, such as temperature fluctuations, pH variations, ultraviolet light exposure, and presence of dissolved organic matter.

Spatial and temporal representativeness constitutes a critical quality dimension for field studies. High-quality observational research demonstrates that sampling locations and timing adequately capture the exposure gradients and ecological contexts of interest. Studies should document habitat characteristics, seasonal considerations, and environmental conditions during sampling that might influence results. The causal inference strength depends on demonstrating exposure-response relationships while accounting for potential confounders through study design or statistical analysis approaches [59].

Emerging Approaches and Alternative Testing Methods

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in ecotoxicology, including in vitro assays, omics technologies, and in silico models, require adapted quality assessment frameworks. While these approaches offer opportunities to reduce animal testing and increase throughput, they present unique validation challenges [46]. The ECOTOX knowledgebase, as a curated database of ecologically relevant toxicity tests, employs systematic review procedures to identify and evaluate such studies, focusing on their relevance for environmental species and applicability to risk assessment [46].

Quality assessment for NAMs should consider biological relevance of the test system, technical reproducibility, and predictive validity for higher-level effects in whole organisms or populations. For molecular biomarkers, establishing connection to adverse outcome pathways strengthens their utility in risk assessment. The EPA's guidance acknowledges that open literature may include novel testing approaches not covered by standardized guidelines, requiring careful evaluation of their scientific validity and relevance to protection goals [61].

Practical Application: Protocols for Quality Assessment

Systematic Review Workflow for Quality Assessment

The quality assessment process in systematic reviews follows a structured workflow that begins with protocol development and proceeds through screening, eligibility assessment, risk of bias evaluation, and evidence synthesis. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence provides detailed guidance for systematic review protocols in environmental sciences, requiring explicit methodology descriptions for article screening, study validity assessment, data extraction, and synthesis [62].

Figure 1: Systematic review workflow for quality assessment in ecotoxicology, following established protocols for transparent evidence evaluation [62] [59].

Detailed ROBINS-E Assessment Procedure

The ROBINS-E implementation procedure involves sequential evaluation of the seven bias domains, with documentation of judgments and supporting information at each step. Reviewers should begin by specifying the target estimand (the causal effect the study attempts to estimate) and then proceed through each domain:

• Confounding: Identify potential confounders and assess whether they were adequately measured and controlled through design restrictions or statistical adjustment.
• Selection of Participants: Determine whether selection processes (including loss to follow-up) could have resulted in associations between exposure and outcome.
• Exposure Classification: Evaluate exposure assessment methods, timing relative to outcome, and potential for misclassification.
• Departures from Intended Exposures: Assess whether participants adhered to assigned exposure levels and whether analysis appropriately accounted for deviations.
• Missing Data: Quantify amount of missing data and evaluate whether missingness could be related to both exposure and outcome.
• Outcome Measurement: Scrutinize outcome assessment methods, blinding of assessors, and consistency across exposure groups.
• Selection of Reported Results: Examine whether results were selected from multiple analyses or outcome measurements in ways that could bias findings [59].

For each domain, reviewers answer signaling questions, make risk of bias judgments (low, some concerns, high, very high), and predict the likely direction of bias. These domain-level judgments then inform an overall risk of bias assessment for the study [59].

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Quality Assessment in Ecotoxicology

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
ROBINS-E Tool	Standardized risk of bias assessment for exposure studies	Evaluation of observational ecotoxicology studies in systematic reviews
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	Curated database of ecological toxicity tests	Data gathering for chemical assessments and validation of testing approaches
Systematic Review Protocols	Structured methodology for evidence synthesis	Planning and conducting systematic reviews in environmental health
Visualization/Toxicological Priority Index (ToxPi)	Visual representation of relative hazard magnitudes	Comparative hazard assessment and communication of complex toxicological data
EPA Evaluation Guidelines	Criteria for accepting ecotoxicity studies from open literature	Quality screening of published studies for regulatory risk assessment
Adverse Outcome Pathways	Conceptual framework linking molecular initiating events to adverse outcomes	Organizing mechanistic evidence and supporting read-across approaches

Implementation Framework and Reporting Standards

Documentation and Transparency Requirements

Comprehensive documentation represents a cornerstone of rigorous quality assessment in ecotoxicology. The EPA's evaluation guidelines emphasize the importance of completing Open Literature Review Summaries (OLRS) for tracking assessments and ensuring consistency across reviewers [61]. Documentation should include: the initial search strategy and inclusion criteria; detailed rationale for study exclusions; complete risk of bias assessments with supporting justifications; data extraction forms; and any modifications to pre-specified protocols.

Reporting standards for ecotoxicology studies continue to evolve, with initiatives aimed at improving methodological transparency and reproducibility. When reporting quality assessment results, reviewers should specify the assessment tool used (including version), process for resolving disagreements between reviewers, summary of findings across studies, and consideration of how risk of bias limitations affect confidence in the overall evidence base. The Environmental Evidence Journal requires authors to complete Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) forms, which standardize reporting of methodological details across systematic reviews in environmental sciences [62].

Integration with Evidence Synthesis and Risk Assessment

Quality assessment findings must be integrated into evidence synthesis rather than treated as a separate exercise. The systematic review process uses quality assessments to: explore heterogeneity in study findings; determine suitability for quantitative meta-analysis; grade the overall strength of evidence; and inform conclusions and research recommendations [58]. In regulatory contexts, such as the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, quality assessment directly influences which studies are included in risk assessment and how much weight they receive in decision-making [61].

The strength of evidence grading considers not only risk of bias but also consistency across studies, directness of evidence to the review question, precision of effect estimates, and consideration of publication bias. Systematic reviews in ecotoxicology should clearly communicate how quality assessments influenced these evidence grading decisions, particularly when making regulatory determinations or informing chemical substitution decisions [13].

In the field of ecotoxicology, systematic reviews require the synthesis of evidence from a vast body of literature to inform ecological risk assessments, chemical regulation, and policy decisions. The volume and heterogeneity of available data—encompassing diverse species, chemical toxicants, and measured effects—present significant challenges in data extraction, management, and collaborative analysis. This document outlines application notes and protocols for managing these complex datasets within the context of systematic review methods, drawing from established frameworks like the ECOTOX Knowledgebase to ensure data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) [63] [31].

Data Extraction and Curation Protocols

A rigorous, standardized protocol for data extraction is the foundation of a reliable ecotoxicology systematic review. The process must ensure that data from disparate studies are captured accurately and in a structured format that enables subsequent analysis.

Experimental Protocol: Literature Screening and Data Extraction

The following methodology, adapted from the ECOTOX Knowledgebase pipeline, provides a robust framework for identifying and extracting ecotoxicology data from the peer-reviewed and grey literature [31].

Objective: To systematically identify, evaluate, and extract relevant ecotoxicological data from published literature for integration into a structured database. Primary Applications: Ecological Risk Assessment, Ambient Water Quality Criteria development, and chemical prioritization [31].

Procedural Steps:

• Planning and Identification:

  • Chemical Verification: Verify the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) for the toxicant of interest.
  • Search Term Development: Compile a comprehensive list of chemical synonyms, trade names, and related forms using sources like the U.S. EPA's Chemicals Dashboard and the Pesticide Action Network.
  • Literature Search: Execute a systematic search using chemical-specific search strings across multiple literature search engines and databases [31].

• Screening for Applicability: Studies must be evaluated against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, often structured as a PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) statement [31].

  • Inclusion Criteria:
    • Population (P): Taxonomically verifiable, ecologically relevant organisms (e.g., fish, amphibians, benthic invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals). Bacteria, viruses, yeast, and human-focused studies are excluded.
    • Exposure (E): Single, verifiable chemical toxicant with a known, quantified exposure amount (concentration or dosage) and a documented exposure duration.
    • Comparator (C): Must include an appropriate control treatment.
    • Outcome (O): A measurable biological effect (e.g., mortality, growth reduction, reproductive impairment) concurrent with the chemical exposure.
    • Publication Type: Primary source (e.g., full article in English); reviews, abstracts, and modeling papers without primary data are excluded [31].
  • Exclusion Documentation: All rejected studies must be tagged with a specific reason for exclusion (e.g., "Mixture," "No Concentration," "Review," "Bacteria") to ensure transparency and auditability [31].

• Data Extraction:

  • Extract relevant study details and toxicity results into a structured database using controlled vocabularies.
  • Key Data Fields: Unique record identifier, Chemical ID (CASRN, DTXSID), Taxonomic ID (NCBI TaxID, ITIS TSN), test conditions (exposure duration, route), and toxicity results (e.g., LC50, NOEC, LOEC) [31].
  • A single study may yield multiple database records if it reports on different species, endpoints, or exposure conditions.

Workflow Visualization: Systematic Review Data Pipeline

The following diagram illustrates the sequential stages of the data extraction and curation protocol.

Team Collaboration and Data Management Framework

Managing a systematic review is a collaborative endeavor. Implementing modern data management practices is critical to prevent errors, maintain version control, and ensure the integrity of the collected dataset.

Best Practices for Collaborative Data Management

• Implement Data Version Control: Adopt systems that provide Git-like operations for data, such as lakeFS. This allows team members to work on data assets simultaneously without conflicts, create isolated branches for testing, and easily revert to previous versions in case of errors, ensuring data quality and reproducibility [64].
• Adopt a Clear Data Governance Policy: Define roles and responsibilities (e.g., data owners, stewards, users) and establish guidelines for data handling, privacy, and access control. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) ensures that only authorized personnel can modify critical data models or production datasets [65] [66].
• Maintain a Clear Change History: Track all changes made to the data, including who made the change, when, and why. This creates a transparent and accountable record, which is essential for auditability and troubleshooting [64].
• Share Specific Data Versions: When communicating about data, always reference specific, immutable versions of the dataset. This ensures all team members and stakeholders are analyzing and discussing the same data, preventing confusion from working with evolving datasets [64].
• Automate Data Quality Monitoring: Implement continuous checks and validations on data before integrating it into the production environment. Automated profiling can identify inconsistencies, missing values, and deviations from expected patterns, allowing for rapid intervention [66].

Workflow Visualization: Collaborative Data Versioning

This diagram outlines a Git-like workflow for managing data versions in a collaborative research environment, incorporating a Write-Audit-Publish (WAP) pattern to prevent low-quality data from affecting production.

Data Presentation and Quantitative Analysis

Effectively summarizing and presenting extracted quantitative data is crucial for analysis and communication in a systematic review.

Tabular Presentation of Quantitative Data

Tables are ideal for presenting precise individual values and facilitating comparison across multiple variables. The table below summarizes common quantitative data extracted in ecotoxicology and recommended presentation formats [67] [68].

Table 1: Presentation Methods for Ecotoxicological Quantitative Data

Data Type	Description	Example from Ecotoxicology	Recommended Presentation Format
Individual Values	Precise measurements or summary statistics (e.g., mean ± SD)	LC50 value, specific growth measurement	Table (allows for exact representation) [68]
Frequency Distribution	Counts of observations within specific class intervals	Number of species affected in different concentration ranges	Histogram or Frequency Polygon [69] [67]
Time Trends	Values measured over a sequence of time points	Mortality or reproductive output over days of exposure	Line Diagram [67]
Correlation	Relationship between two quantitative variables	Correlation between chemical log Kow and bioconcentration factor	Scatter Diagram [67]
Comparative Data	Comparing quantities between two or more groups	Toxicity endpoints (e.g., LC50) for a chemical across different species	Comparative Bar Chart or Comparative Frequency Polygon [69]

Protocol for Creating Frequency Distributions and Histograms

For data that requires grouping, such as creating species sensitivity distributions, follow this protocol to construct a frequency distribution table and corresponding histogram [69] [67].

• Calculate the Range: Determine the span of the data by subtracting the lowest value from the highest value.
• Define Class Intervals:
  • Create between 5 and 16 class intervals for optimal clarity.
  • Intervals should be equal in size throughout the distribution (e.g., 0–5, 5–10, 10–15 mg/L).
  • The upper limit of one interval typically coincides with the lower limit of the next.
• Tally Frequencies: Count the number of observations that fall into each class interval.
• Construct the Histogram:
  • Represent the class intervals along the horizontal axis (width of the bars).
  • Represent the frequencies along the vertical axis (height of the bars).
  • Bars should be rectangular and contiguous (touching without space), as the class intervals are continuous. The area of each bar is proportional to the frequency [67].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key resources and tools essential for conducting data management and analysis in ecotoxicology systematic reviews.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Ecotoxicology Data Management

Tool / Resource	Function / Purpose
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	A comprehensive, curated database providing structured in vivo toxicity data for aquatic and terrestrial organisms, used for ecological risk assessments and criteria development [31].
Data Version Control (e.g., lakeFS)	Enables Git-like data versioning (branching, merging, rollback) on object storage, facilitating conflict-free team collaboration and reproducible workflows [64].
dbt (Data Build Tool)	A transformation tool that applies software engineering practices like model versioning, testing, and documentation to data pipelines, ensuring data quality and governance [65].
Conditional Formatting & Heat Maps	A feature in software like Excel used to apply color gradients to table cells, allowing for rapid visual identification of patterns, outliers, or values of interest in large tables of data [68].
Automated ETL Tools (e.g., Apache Airflow, AWS Glue)	Orchestrate and automate Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) processes, reducing manual errors and ensuring efficient, scheduled data pipeline execution [66].

The unprecedented growth of scientific literature has created both opportunities and challenges for researchers in ecotoxicology seeking to synthesize evidence for chemical risk assessment, regulatory decision-making, and environmental policy development. Systematic reviews, once primarily associated with healthcare evidence synthesis, have emerged as critical methodologies in environmental sciences for their rigorous, transparent, and reproducible approach to evidence collection and evaluation [70] [71]. The conventional systematic review process is inherently resource-intensive, typically requiring 6 to 18 months for completion and involving complex coordination among research team members [70]. In ecotoxicology, where evidence may span multiple disciplines, study designs, and outcome measures, this challenge is particularly pronounced.

Digital systematic review platforms have emerged as essential tools to manage this complexity, offering structured workflows that enhance efficiency, collaboration, and methodological rigor [72] [71]. These platforms address key bottlenecks in the review process, including literature screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and evidence synthesis. By integrating specialized functionalities for these tasks, they enable research teams to focus on critical appraisal and interpretation rather than administrative overhead. For ecotoxicology researchers operating in a highly regulated and evidence-driven field, adopting these tools represents a strategic approach to maintaining scientific integrity while accelerating the pace at which environmental evidence can inform policy and practice [71].

The evolution of these tools has been marked by increasing sophistication, with artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies now being deployed to prioritize screening, identify patterns in large datasets, and reduce manual workload [73] [71]. This technological advancement aligns with the growing emphasis on living systematic reviews and rapid evidence synthesis approaches that can keep pace with the expanding literature on chemical exposures and ecological impacts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of leading systematic review software platforms, with specific application notes and protocols tailored to the context of ecotoxicology research.

Comprehensive Comparison of Systematic Review Software Tools

Tool Selection Criteria for Ecotoxicology Research

Selecting appropriate systematic review software for ecotoxicology research requires careful consideration of several factors specific to the discipline's evidentiary needs. Ecotoxicology systematic reviews often incorporate diverse study designs (from laboratory assays to field studies), multiple endpoints across different biological organization levels, and complex exposure scenarios that may involve chemical mixtures or interactive stressors [70]. The ideal software platform should accommodate this complexity while supporting the transparent documentation required for regulatory acceptance.

Key selection criteria include: comprehensive workflow support from literature search to synthesis; flexible data extraction capabilities for diverse data types common in ecotoxicology (e.g., dose-response data, biomarker measurements, ecological field observations); robust collaboration features for research teams that may include toxicologists, ecologists, statisticians, and policy experts; and accessibility in terms of cost and technical requirements [70] [73] [71]. Additionally, tools that offer customization of risk of bias assessment frameworks to align with ecotoxicology-specific methodological standards (e.g., COSTER, SciRAP) provide significant advantages for environmental evidence synthesis.

Comparative Analysis of Leading Platforms

Table 1: Feature comparison of major systematic review software platforms

Platform	Primary Functions	Cost Model	AI/Machine Learning Features	Ecotoxicology Applicability
Covidence	Citation screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment, data extraction	Subscription [74] [70]	Machine learning for study filtering [73]	High - Used across multiple sectors including environmental science [74]
EPPI-Reviewer	Reference management, screening, coding, synthesis, text mining	Subscription (free for Cochrane reviewers) [75] [70]	Text mining, priority screening, concept identification [75] [73]	High - Suitable for all review types including environmental topics [75] [76]
Rayyan	Title/abstract screening, collaboration	Freemium [70] [72]	AI-powered screening suggestions [73] [72]	Medium - Good for initial screening phase [70]
DistillerSR	Screening, data extraction, quality assessment, reporting	Subscription [70] [73]	AI-assisted prioritization, automated quality control [70] [73]	High - Flexible framework for different review types [70]
CADIMA	Protocol development, literature searching, study selection, critical appraisal	Free [70]	Limited AI capabilities	Medium - Originally developed for agriculture/environment [70]

Table 2: Technical specifications and integration capabilities

Platform	Deployment	Reference Manager Integration	Export Capabilities	Collaboration Features
Covidence	Web-based [74] [77]	EndNote, Zotero, RefWorks, Mendeley, RIS, PubMed [77]	Excel, CSV, statistics packages [77]	Unlimited team members, progress tracking [74] [77]
EPPI-Reviewer	Web-based [75] [76]	PubMed, RIS formats, Zotero [75]	Various report formats, Excel, meta-analysis programs [75]	Collaborative working wizards, multi-user [75]
Rayyan	Web-based, mobile apps [70]	RIS, PubMed, other standard formats	RIS, CSV	Blinding features, team management [70] [72]
DistillerSR	Web-based [70]	PubMed via LitConnect, standard formats	Configurable reports, PRISMA diagrams	Multi-reviewer, conflict resolution [70]
CADIMA	Web-based [70]	Standard reference formats	R statistical software	Multi-user [70]

Quantitative performance data highlights the potential efficiency gains from these platforms. Covidence reports an average 35% reduction in time spent per review, saving approximately 71 hours per project [74] [77]. EPPI-Reviewer has demonstrated capacity to reduce screening burden by up to 60% through its priority screening capabilities [73]. These efficiency metrics are particularly valuable for ecotoxicology reviews, which often encompass large evidence bases from multiple scientific disciplines and literature sources.

Experimental Protocols for Systematic Review Software Implementation

Protocol 1: Implementation of Covidence for Ecotoxicology Systematic Reviews

Objective: To establish a standardized protocol for using Covidence to conduct a systematic review of ecotoxicological effects of environmental contaminants.

Materials and Equipment:

• Institutional or individual Covidence subscription
• Reference manager software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote)
• Search strategy for relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Environment Complete)
• Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria specific to ecotoxicology research question
• Customized data extraction template for ecotoxicology endpoints

Procedure:

• Account Setup and Review Creation
  • Create institutional or individual Covidence account
  • Select "Create new review" and enter review details (title, research question, PECO elements)
  • Invite review team members with appropriate permissions

• Citation Import and Management

  • Export search results from databases in RIS or PubMed format
  • Upload search results to Covidence using "Import studies" function
  • Monitor duplicate removal process, which occurs automatically [77]

• Title and Abstract Screening

  • Configure screening form with ecotoxicology-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • Enable dual independent screening with blinding to minimize bias
  • Screen titles/abstracts using quick-view interface with keyword highlighting
  • Resolve conflicts through built-in consensus mechanism [74] [77]

• Full-Text Assessment

  • Upload full-text PDFs for included studies (assisted by automatic open-access retrieval)
  • Conduct dual independent full-text review using customized exclusion criteria
  • Capture reasons for exclusion directly in the system
  • Mark included studies for data extraction phase [77]

• Risk of Bias Assessment and Data Extraction

  • Select appropriate risk of bias tool (customize if necessary for ecotoxicology specificity)
  • Create customized data extraction form specific to ecotoxicology data types:
    • Chemical classes and properties
    • Test organisms and life stages
    • Exposure concentrations and durations
    • Measured endpoints (molecular, physiological, population-level)
    • Environmental relevance parameters
  • Populate risk of bias tables by highlighting text directly in PDFs [77]

• Export and Synthesis

  • Export extracted data in machine-readable format for statistical analysis
  • Download PRISMA flow diagram documenting review process
  • Export all review data for archive or further analysis [77]

Troubleshooting Notes: For large ecotoxicology datasets with >10,000 references, consider splitting screening workload among multiple team members. When creating custom data extraction forms, pilot test with a subset of studies to ensure all relevant ecotoxicology data fields are captured.

Protocol 2: Implementation of EPPI-Reviewer for Complex Evidence Synthesis

Objective: To utilize EPPI-Reviewer's advanced synthesis capabilities for a mixed-methods systematic review integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in ecotoxicology.

Materials and Equipment:

• EPPI-Reviewer subscription (individual or institutional)
• OpenAlex database access (integrated within EPPI-Reviewer)
• Statistical software for meta-analysis (e.g., R, Stata)
• Predefined coding framework for qualitative evidence

Procedure:

• System Setup and Configuration
  • Create EPPI-Reviewer account via Account Manager [75]
  • Select "Create new review" and specify review type (e.g., mixed-methods synthesis)
  • Configure integration with OpenAlex database containing >200 million references [75]

• Reference Import and Deduplication

  • Import references from multiple sources using RIS or other standard formats
  • Utilize automatic duplicate identification and removal
  • Access additional references via integrated OpenAlex database [75]

• Priority Screening with Text Mining

  • Activate text mining functionality to identify key concepts across the literature
  • Use priority screening feature to reduce screening workload by surfacing potentially relevant studies
  • Conduct dual screening with conflict resolution workflow [75] [73]

• Coding and Data Extraction

  • Develop comprehensive code set for ecotoxicology evidence:
    • Intervention/exposure codes
    • Outcome measures across biological levels
    • Population/test system characteristics
    • Methodological approaches
  • Apply codes to included studies using structured forms
  • Extract quantitative data for meta-analysis where appropriate [76]

• Evidence Synthesis and Analysis

  • Utilize built-in meta-analysis functions for quantitative synthesis
  • Apply framework synthesis or thematic synthesis approaches for qualitative evidence
  • Generate evidence maps to visualize research distribution across chemical classes or ecosystems
  • Create custom reports using Excel export or built-in reporting functions [75] [76]

• Review Maintenance and Updating

  • Set up alert systems for new relevant publications
  • Utilize EPPI-Reviewer's version control for living systematic review approaches
  • Export completed review in appropriate formats for publication or reporting [75]

Troubleshooting Notes: When working with heterogeneous ecotoxicology data, carefully configure meta-analysis settings to address effect size variability across different endpoint types. For qualitative synthesis, establish clear coding guidelines to ensure consistency across multiple reviewers.

Visualization of Systematic Review Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the generalized systematic review workflow in ecotoxicology, highlighting integration points for digital tools:

Digital Tool Integration in Systematic Review Workflow: This diagram illustrates the systematic review process in ecotoxicology with key integration points for digital tools at each stage, from protocol development to final reporting.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Digital Solutions for Ecotoxicology Reviews

Table 3: Research reagent solutions for systematic reviews in ecotoxicology

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Primary Function	Application in Ecotoxicology
Comprehensive Review Platforms	Covidence, EPPI-Reviewer, DistillerSR	End-to-end review management	Managing complex ecotoxicology reviews with multiple study designs and endpoints [74] [75] [70]
Screening Tools	Rayyan, SWIFT-ActiveScreener	Title/abstract screening	Rapid initial screening of large literature searches common in chemical assessments [70] [71]
Reference Management	Zotero, Mendeley	Reference organization, duplicate removal	Managing references from multiple databases prior to import into review software [71]
Risk of Bias Assessment	RobotReviewer, Custom forms	Methodological quality assessment	Adapting quality appraisal to ecotoxicology-specific methodological standards [71]
Data Synthesis	R packages, JBI-SUMARI	Statistical synthesis, meta-analysis	Analyzing diverse ecotoxicological data types and effect sizes [70] [71]
Evidence Mapping	EPPI-Mapper	Visualization of evidence landscapes	Identifying research gaps in chemical classes or ecosystem types [76]

Application Notes for Ecotoxicology Research

Discipline-Specific Implementation Considerations

Ecotoxicology systematic reviews present unique challenges that influence software selection and implementation. The heterogeneous nature of ecotoxicology evidence, encompassing laboratory studies, mesocosm experiments, and field observations, requires flexible data extraction frameworks that can accommodate diverse study designs and endpoint measurements [70]. Software platforms with customizable forms and coding systems (e.g., EPPI-Reviewer, DistillerSR) are particularly valuable for this purpose.

The regulatory context of much ecotoxicology research necessitates strict documentation and transparency in review methods. Platforms like Covidence that maintain detailed audit trails of screening decisions and data extraction processes provide necessary documentation for regulatory submissions [74] [77]. Similarly, tools that support PRISMA reporting standards facilitate the transparent communication required for chemical risk assessment and environmental policy development.

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies represents the most significant advancement in systematic review software, with particular relevance for ecotoxicology's expanding evidence base [73] [71]. These technologies offer potential to address several discipline-specific challenges:

• Priority screening algorithms can reduce workload by identifying potentially relevant studies in large search results, particularly valuable for broad chemical assessments with extensive literature [73].

• Natural language processing can assist in identifying and extracting complex exposure data and outcome measurements from diverse literature sources [71].

• Living review functionalities in platforms like EPPI-Reviewer support the increasingly important approach of continually updated evidence synthesis, critical for rapidly evolving research areas like emerging contaminants [75].

The development of ecotoxicology-specific risk of bias instruments and data extraction templates within these platforms would further enhance their utility for the field. Research teams should consider these emerging capabilities when selecting and implementing digital tools for their systematic reviews, with an eye toward future-proofing their evidence synthesis workflows.

For ecotoxicology researchers embarking on systematic reviews, the strategic adoption of these digital tools offers the potential to enhance both the efficiency and rigor of their evidence synthesis efforts, ultimately contributing to more robust and timely chemical risk assessments and environmental protection decisions.

Dealing with Publication Bias and Confounding Factors in Environmental Exposure Studies

Within the systematic review methods in ecotoxicology research, two significant methodological challenges threaten the validity of synthesized evidence: publication bias and confounding factors. Publication bias, the phenomenon where published research results differ systematically from unpublished investigations’ outcomes, distorts the evidence base by favoring statistically significant or 'positive' findings [78]. Concurrently, environmental exposure studies are particularly susceptible to confounding, where extraneous variables create spurious associations or mask true effects [79]. This protocol provides detailed methodologies for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for these threats, ensuring more reliable and valid synthesis of ecotoxicological evidence.

Understanding Publication Bias in Ecotoxicology

Definition and Scope

Publication bias represents a form of dissemination bias where the publication of research depends on the nature and direction of its results [78]. In ecotoxicology, this often manifests as the under-publication of studies showing null or non-significant effects of environmental chemicals on populations, communities, and ecosystems [8]. The term "dissemination bias" encompasses various related biases, including outcome-reporting bias, time-lag bias, grey-literature bias, full-publication prejudice, language bias, and citation bias [78].

Implications for Ecotoxicological Synthesis

The systematic omission of certain study types from published literature leads to skewed effect estimates in meta-analyses, potentially resulting in:

• Overestimation of the true impact of environmental toxicants
• Inaccurate effect sizes in quantitative synthesis [80]
• Flawed conclusions regarding the ecological risks of chemicals
• Compromised decision-making for environmental regulation and policy

Protocol for Detecting and Addressing Publication Bias

Comprehensive Search Strategies

Objective: To minimize publication bias by identifying and including all relevant studies, regardless of publication status or outcome.

Methodology:

• Search Without Outcome Restrictions: Develop search strategies that do not filter for specific results or statistical significance.
• Prospective Trial Registries: Search environmental study registries and databases for protocols and unpublished studies.
• Grey Literature Sources: Systematically search:
  • Conference abstracts and proceedings
  • PhD theses and dissertations
  • Government and regulatory reports (e.g., EPA, EFSA)
  • Institutional repositories and pre-print servers
• Contact Authors and Organizations: Directly contact corresponding authors of included studies and pharmaceutical or medical device companies for additional studies [78].

Table 1: Quantitative Data Extraction Template for Ecotoxicological Meta-Analyses

Variable Category	Specific Parameters	Measurement Units	Data Format
Study Identifiers	Study ID, Author, Year	Text	String
Publication Status	Published/Unpublished, Peer-Reviewed, Grey Literature	Categorical	Binary/Nominal
Effect Size Metrics	Hedges' g, Risk Ratio, Odds Ratio, Correlation Coefficient	Numeric	Continuous
Precision Measures	Standard Error, Variance, Confidence Intervals	Numeric	Continuous
Sample Characteristics	Population Size, Control Group Size, Species, Ecosystem Type	Numeric/Text	Mixed
Chemical Exposure	Chemical Class, Dose, Duration, Exposure Matrix	Text/Numeric	Mixed

Statistical Methods for Detecting Publication Bias

Objective: To quantitatively assess the potential presence and impact of publication bias on meta-analytic results.

Methodology:

• Funnel Plots: Visual inspection of asymmetry in scatterplots of effect size against precision (e.g., standard error) [78].
• Statistical Tests: Employ Egger's regression test to quantify funnel plot asymmetry.
• Trim-and-Fill Method: Iterative procedure to identify and adjust for missing studies [81].
• Selection Models: Statistical models that explicitly model the publication selection process.

Table 2: Statistical Methods for Publication Bias Assessment

Method	Underlying Principle	Data Requirements	Interpretation Guidelines
Funnel Plot	Visual asymmetry assessment	Effect sizes and precision measures	Subjective interpretation; prone to false positives with few studies
Egger's Test	Linear regression of standardized effect on precision	Effect sizes, standard errors	p < 0.05 suggests significant asymmetry
Trim-and-Fill	Imputation of theoretically missing studies	Individual study effect sizes and variances	Estimates number of missing studies and adjusted effect size
Fail-Safe N	Calculates number of null studies needed to nullify effect	Combined effect size, individual p-values	N > 5k + 10 suggests robustness (Rosenthal's criterion)

Understanding Confounding in Environmental Exposure Studies

Ecological Bias and Confounding

Ecological bias occurs when associations observed at the group level differ from those that exist at the individual level [79]. In environmental exposure studies, this manifests when:

• The group variable (e.g., geographic region) is associated with both exposure and outcome
• Effect modification is present, where the effect of exposure varies across subgroups
• Extraneous risk factors are unevenly distributed across exposure groups

Unlike individual-level confounding, ecological bias can occur even when the group variable or effect modifier are not independent risk factors, and when extraneous risk factors are not associated with the study variable at the individual level [79].

Types of Confounding in Ecotoxicology

Seasonal and Temporal Confounding: Environmental studies are particularly vulnerable to confounding by seasonal variation and time trends. Case-crossover studies can control for these through appropriate design choices, such as symmetric bi-directional control sampling with short lag times [82].

Effect Modification: The conditions for ecological bias are broader than for individual-level confounding, as effect modification alone can cause profound ecological bias without the effect modifier being a risk factor itself [79].

Protocol for Controlling Confounding Factors

Study Design Approaches

Objective: To minimize confounding through robust methodological design in primary studies and systematic reviews.

Methodology:

• Case-Crossover Design: For studies of acute effects of environmental exposures, use symmetric bi-directional approach with shortest feasible lag time to control for seasonal and temporal trends [82].
• Stratified Analysis: Pre-specify subgroup analyses based on potential effect modifiers (e.g., species type, ecosystem, exposure duration).
• Ecological Control: Recognize that standardization or ecological control of variables responsible for ecological bias is generally insufficient to remove such bias [79].

Confounding Control Workflow

Analytical Approaches for Confounding Control

Objective: To statistically adjust for identified confounders in meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

Methodology:

• Meta-Regression: Using each study as a unit of observation to evaluate the effect of individual variables on the magnitude of observed effects [80].
• Sensitivity Analyses: Assess the robustness of conclusions by testing how results change under different assumptions about confounding.
• Quality Effects Modeling: Incorporate study quality assessments as weights in meta-analysis to account for methodological confounding.

Table 3: Data Extraction Template for Confounding Assessment

Confounding Domain	Specific Variables	Measurement Approach	Adjustment Method
Temporal Factors	Season, Year, Time trend	Categorical/Continuous	Case-crossover, Stratification
Population Characteristics	Species, Age, Sex, Genetic factors	Categorical	Subgroup analysis, Meta-regression
Environmental Context	Ecosystem type, Climate, Geography	Categorical	Ecological analysis, Stratification
Methodological Factors	Study design, Quality, Risk of bias	Scale/Score	Quality effects model, Sensitivity analysis
Exposure Characteristics	Dose, Duration, Timing, Mixtures	Continuous/Categorical	Dose-response meta-analysis

Integrated Workflow for Addressing Both Challenges

Integrated Bias Assessment Workflow

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Ecotoxicological Systematic Reviews

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Implementation Considerations
Statistical Software	R (metafor, meta), Stata, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis	Conducting meta-analysis, generating funnel plots, performing statistical tests for publication bias	Open-source vs. commercial; learning curve; reproducibility
Grey Literature Databases	OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations, EPA Reports, Conference proceedings	Identifying unpublished studies and reducing publication bias	Access restrictions; search syntax variations; indexing quality
Study Registries	ClinicalTrials.gov, Environmental research registries	Identifying ongoing and completed but unpublished studies	Variable registration requirements across environmental fields
Quality Assessment Tools	ROBINS-I, Cochrane Risk of Bias, SYRCLE's tool for animal studies	Assessing methodological quality and confounding control	Domain-specific adaptations; inter-rater reliability
Data Extraction Forms	Custom-designed electronic forms with pre-specified confounders	Standardized collection of study characteristics and potential confounders	Pilot testing; inter-extractor agreement; data validation

Application Notes for Ecotoxicology Research

Field-Specific Considerations

Ecotoxicology research presents unique challenges for addressing publication bias and confounding:

• Diverse Ecosystem Contexts: Effects may vary substantially across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, creating effect modification that can lead to ecological bias if not properly addressed [8].

• Multiple Endpoints: Ecotoxicological studies often measure effects at multiple biological levels (molecular, population, community), increasing the risk of selective outcome reporting.

• Regulatory Implications: Given that "research must prove harm before environmental exposures are limited" [83], publication bias toward null results may be particularly problematic in this field.

Protocol Implementation Guidelines

For Primary Researchers:

• Register all studies prior to commencement, regardless of anticipated outcome
• Report all measured endpoints, including non-significant findings
• Measure and document potential confounding variables for future adjustment

For Systematic Reviewers:

• Employ exhaustive search strategies that explicitly include grey literature sources
• Conduct both graphical and statistical tests for publication bias
• Pre-specify sensitivity analyses to test robustness to potential confounding
• Acknowledge that "including unpublished research frequently changes effect sizes, although it does not necessarily eliminate publication bias" [78]

Addressing publication bias and confounding factors is methodologically challenging but essential for valid evidence synthesis in environmental exposure studies. The protocols outlined provide a structured approach to detect, quantify, and adjust for these threats to validity. By implementing these methods consistently, researchers in ecotoxicology can produce more reliable estimates of chemical effects that better inform environmental regulation and policy decisions. Future methodological advances should focus on developing field-specific standards for managing these biases within the unique context of ecotoxicological research.

Advancing the Field: Validation Frameworks, Digital Tools, and Future Directions

The EcoSR framework represents a significant advancement in ecotoxicology, addressing the critical need for standardized assessment of internal validity and risk of bias (RoB) in ecological toxicity studies. Developed specifically for toxicity value development, this integrated framework provides a systematic, tiered approach to evaluating study reliability, filling a crucial methodology gap compared to human health assessments [43]. By adapting classical RoB assessment principles to ecotoxicological contexts, EcoSR enhances the transparency, consistency, and reproducibility of study appraisals, ultimately contributing to more informed ecological risk assessments and regulatory decisions [43]. This framework arrives at a pivotal moment when environmental evidence synthesis faces increasing scrutiny, with recent analyses revealing that nearly two-thirds of environmental systematic reviews lack proper RoB assessment [84].

Ecotoxicological research provides the foundational evidence for chemical risk assessments, regulatory decisions, and environmental management policies. The exponential growth of chemicals in commerce has intensified the demand for reliable toxicity data, with regulatory mandates requiring safety assessments for increasingly large numbers of substances [46]. Within this context, the internal validity of individual studies—the degree to which their design and conduct can provide unbiased results—becomes paramount [84]. Systematic error, or bias, represents a consistent deviation from true effect values and cannot be addressed through statistical precision alone [84].

The need for standardized assessment is underscored by concerning gaps in current practice. A random sample of recent environmental systematic reviews found that 64% completely omitted RoB assessments, while nearly all that included them missed key bias sources [84]. This deficiency threatens the validity of conclusions drawn from evidence syntheses in environmental management, conservation, and ecosystem restoration [84]. The EcoSR framework directly addresses these shortcomings by providing ecotoxicology-specific criteria for evaluating inherent study quality, thereby supporting the development of evidence-based environmental benchmarks [43].

The EcoSR Framework: Structure and Components

Foundational Principles and Tiered Architecture

The EcoSR framework builds upon classical risk of bias assessment approaches frequently applied in human health assessments but incorporates reliability criteria specific to ecotoxicology studies [43]. Its development involved a comprehensive review of existing critical appraisal tools, recognizing that no previous method adequately addressed the full range of biases relevant to ecotoxicological literature evaluation [43].

The framework employs a two-tiered assessment structure:

• Tier 1 (Preliminary Screening): An optional initial screening to rapidly identify studies that clearly fail basic reliability criteria
• Tier 2 (Full Reliability Assessment): A comprehensive evaluation of internal validity using ecotoxicology-specific criteria [43]

This architecture provides flexibility, allowing assessment teams to customize the framework based on specific assessment goals while maintaining methodological rigor [43]. The tiered approach also enhances efficiency by focusing detailed evaluation efforts on studies that pass initial screening thresholds.

Core Assessment Domains and Methodological Considerations

The EcoSR framework's full assessment (Tier 2) examines multiple domains of potential bias through ecotoxicology-specific criteria. While the exact domains are detailed in the associated publication, they encompass critical methodological aspects such as experimental design, exposure characterization, endpoint measurement, and statistical analysis [43]. The framework emphasizes the FEAT principles—assessments must be Focused, Extensive, Applied, and Transparent—ensuring they are fit-for-purpose [84].

The framework operates within a broader Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report methodology for RoB assessment in systematic reviews [84]. This comprehensive approach spans from protocol development through to the final presentation of assessments in systematic review reports, enhancing methodological consistency across environmental evidence syntheses.

Table 1: Core Principles for Risk of Bias Assessment in EcoSR

Principle	Description	Implementation in EcoSR
Focused	Assessments concentrate specifically on internal validity (risk of bias)	Clearly distinguishes internal validity from other quality constructs like precision or completeness of reporting [84]
Extensive	Covers all key sources of bias relevant to ecotoxicology studies	Includes ecotoxicology-specific bias sources not adequately addressed by generic tools [43]
Applied	Assessment results directly inform evidence synthesis and conclusions	Reliability ratings determine how studies contribute to toxicity value development [43]
Transparent	Methods, criteria, and judgments are fully documented and reproducible	Provides clear documentation of assessment criteria and decision rules [43] [84]

Application Protocols: Implementing the EcoSR Framework

Integration with Systematic Review Workflow

The EcoSR framework functions as a critical component within the broader systematic review process for ecotoxicology. Implementation follows a structured workflow that aligns with established systematic review standards [5]. The assessment occurs after study identification and screening but before data synthesis and toxicity value development [43].

Protocol Development Stage: Assessment teams should pre-specify EcoSR implementation details in the systematic review protocol, including:

• Criteria for Tier 1 screening (if used)
• Specific adaptation of Tier 2 criteria for the review context
• Procedures for resolving disagreements between assessors
• How reliability ratings will inform subsequent synthesis [84]

Application Stage: During the review process, at least two independent assessors apply the EcoSR framework to each included study. The process involves:

• Preliminary assessment using Tier 1 criteria (if employed)
• Comprehensive evaluation of internal validity using Tier 2 criteria
• Documentation of judgments for each assessment domain
• Assignment of overall reliability rating
• Resolution of discrepancies through consensus or third-party adjudication [43] [84]

Tiered Assessment Procedures

Tier 1 Implementation: The preliminary screening serves as an efficient triage mechanism. Assessment teams develop specific, minimal criteria for study reliability based on the assessment context. Studies failing these fundamental criteria are excluded from further analysis, with justifications documented transparently [43].

Tier 2 Implementation: The comprehensive reliability assessment involves:

• Domain-specific evaluation: Assessing potential bias across multiple methodological domains relevant to ecotoxicology
• Transparent judgment documentation: Recording supporting rationale for each assessment decision
• Overall reliability determination: Synthesizing domain-level assessments into an overall reliability rating
• Sensitivity analysis consideration: Planning for how reliability ratings might inform sensitivity analyses in evidence synthesis [43] [84]

Interoperability and Broader Methodological Context

Relationship to Other Methodological Advancements

The EcoSR framework represents part of a broader movement toward standardizing assessment methodologies in ecotoxicology. It aligns with concurrent efforts to update statistical guidance in ecotoxicology, particularly the revision of OECD Document No. 54, which provides assistance on statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data [85]. This parallel initiative addresses outdated methodologies and aims to facilitate data analysis for users without extensive statistical expertise, complementing the EcoSR's focus on internal validity assessment [85].

The framework also supports the growing emphasis on FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) in ecological toxicology [46]. By providing transparent, standardized assessment criteria, EcoSR enhances the reusability and interoperability of ecotoxicity data, particularly when integrated with comprehensive knowledgebases like the ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase (ECOTOX) [46].

Table 2: EcoSR Framework in Context of Ecotoxicology Resources

Resource/Method	Primary Function	Relationship to EcoSR
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	Curated compilation of single chemical ecotoxicity data [46]	Provides data for assessment; EcoSR evaluates reliability of included studies
OECD Document No. 54	Guidance on statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data [85]	Complementary methodological standard; EcoSR assesses implementation quality
ROBINS-E Tool	Risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies of exposures [86]	Generic tool; EcoSR provides ecotoxicology-specific adaptation
Systematic Review Protocols	Framework for evidence identification and evaluation [5]	EcoSR implements critical appraisal component within these protocols

Application in Regulatory and Research Contexts

The EcoSR framework supports multiple applications in environmental research and regulation:

Chemical Risk Evaluations: The framework addresses the need for reliable toxicity value development in chemical risk assessments conducted under mandates such as the Toxic Substances Control Act [5]. By providing transparent, consistent evaluation of study reliability, it enhances the scientific rigor of these regulatory processes.

Evidence-Based Environmental Management: The framework facilitates the assessment of interventions in environmental management, conservation, and ecosystem restoration by addressing PECO-type questions (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) [84].

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) Validation: As toxicology shifts toward high-throughput in vitro assays and computational modeling, the EcoSR framework provides validated in vivo data for comparison, supporting the development and verification of NAMs [46].

Essential Research Reagents: Methodological Tools for Implementation

Successful implementation of the EcoSR framework requires both conceptual understanding and practical methodological tools. The following table summarizes key methodological "reagents" essential for applying the framework in ecotoxicological systematic reviews.

Table 3: Essential Methodological Reagents for EcoSR Implementation

Methodological Component	Function in EcoSR Assessment	Implementation Considerations
Pre-specified Assessment Protocol	Documents planned assessment methods, criteria, and decision rules before review conduct [84]	Should be developed during systematic review protocol stage; includes adaptation of EcoSR to specific review context
Ecotoxicology-Specific Bias Domains	Framework of potential bias sources relevant to ecotoxicology studies [43]	Core component of Tier 2 assessment; requires understanding of ecotoxicology methodology
Dual Independent Assessment Process	Two trained assessors apply framework independently to minimize subjective bias [84]	Discrepancies resolved through consensus or third adjudicator; requires assessor training
Transparent Judgment Documentation	System for recording assessment decisions and supporting rationale [43]	Essential for reproducibility; can use structured forms or specialized software
Reliability Rating System	Categorical system for classifying overall study reliability [43]	Informs sensitivity analyses; determines contribution to evidence synthesis
Integration Plan for Evidence Synthesis	Pre-specified approach for incorporating reliability ratings into overall review conclusions [84]	Determines how reliability assessments influence toxicity value development

The EcoSR framework represents a methodological milestone in ecotoxicological evidence evaluation, providing the field with a standardized, transparent approach to assessing internal validity and risk of bias. By addressing a critical gap in ecological risk assessment methodology, the framework enhances the reliability of toxicity value development and supports more robust environmental decision-making. Its integration with existing resources like the ECOTOX knowledgebase and alignment with broader methodological advancements position it as an essential component in modern ecotoxicology research and regulation. As systematic review methodologies continue to evolve in environmental sciences, the EcoSR framework offers a validated, fit-for-purpose tool for ensuring that ecological risk assessments are built upon a foundation of methodologically sound evidence.

The exponential growth of scientific literature, with over three million new papers published annually, presents a formidable challenge for researchers conducting systematic reviews in ecotoxicology [87]. These reviews are a structured, comprehensive method of gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing all available research evidence on a specific question, and their rigorous methodology is crucial for reducing bias and ensuring objective assessment [88]. The traditional, manual approach to systematic reviews is notoriously time-consuming and resource-intensive, often taking several months to complete [88]. In this context, digital tools have evolved from conveniences to necessities, augmenting human capabilities to make the review process more efficient, transparent, and manageable [87]. This analysis provides a comparative overview of digital tools spanning reference management, AI-assisted literature screening, data analysis, and academic writing, framing their application within the specific workflow of a systematic review in ecotoxicology.

The modern researcher's toolkit can be categorized based on its primary function within the research workflow. The following tables offer a comparative summary of key tools available in 2025, highlighting their specific applications, strengths, and limitations for ecotoxicology research.

Table 1: Tools for Literature Review & Discovery

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Features	Best For	Free Tier	Price (Premium)
Elicit [89]	AI-powered literature review	Automates paper analysis & synthesis; creates structured tables of findings.	Systematic literature reviews and research synthesis.	Yes	$10/month
Scite.ai [87] [89]	Research validation & citation analysis	"Smart Citations" show if publications were supported or contradicted by later studies.	Research validation and assessing reliability of papers.	No	$20/month
Consensus [87] [89]	Research Q&A tool	Extracts evidence-based answers directly from peer-reviewed literature.	Getting quick, evidence-backed answers to scientific questions.	Yes	$15/month
Paperguide [87]	All-in-one AI research assistant	AI literature review, Deep Research AI for automated systematic reviews, AI Paper Writer, Chat with PDF.	Researchers seeking a single platform for the entire systematic review process.	Yes (5 AI gens/day)	$24/month (Pro)
SciSpace [87]	AI PDF reader & explainer	Explains complex texts, equations, and methods in real-time as you read PDFs.	Students and researchers reading technical papers in unfamiliar fields.	Yes	Premium Available

Table 2: Tools for Data Analysis, Writing, and Reference Management

Tool Name	Category	Key Features	Best For	Free Tier	Price (Premium)
Julius AI [89]	Data Analysis	Conversational data analysis; creates charts and runs stats from plain English prompts.	Researchers analyzing spreadsheet data without coding.	No	$25/month
Zotero AI [90]	Reference Management	Smart citation suggestions; automatic PDF metadata extraction; collaborative libraries.	Comprehensive, collaborative reference management.	Yes	$20/year (storage)
EndNote AI [90]	Reference Management	Advanced bibliography customization; citation verification; journal recommendation.	Large projects requiring advanced bibliography customization.	No	Information missing
Paperpal [87]	Academic Writing	Real-time language, grammar, and tone checks; subject-specific writing suggestions.	Polishing academic manuscripts for journal submission.	Yes (limited)	$20/month
ChatGPT-4o [89]	Writing & Brainstorming	Versatile writing assistance, idea generation, and text refinement across research stages.	General research writing, brainstorming, and overcoming writer's block.	Yes	$20/month

Experimental Protocols for Digital Tool Integration

This section outlines detailed methodologies for incorporating digital tools into key stages of a systematic review, as exemplified by a hypothetical ecotoxicology research question: "What is the effect of microplastic exposure on the mortality and reproductive output of Daphnia magna?"

Protocol 1: AI-Assisted Literature Screening and Synthesis

Objective: To efficiently identify, screen, and synthesize relevant academic literature using AI tools.

Materials:

• AI Research Assistant: Paperguide or Elicit.
• Reference Manager: Zotero AI or EndNote AI.
• Search Databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar.

Methodology:

• Formulate Research Question & Search Strategy: Define the research question using the PICO framework (Population: Daphnia magna, Intervention: microplastic exposure, Comparison: unexposed controls, Outcome: mortality, reproduction). Develop a detailed protocol with a comprehensive search string (e.g., "(Daphnia magna) AND (microplastic*) AND (mortality OR lethality OR reproduction OR fecundity)") [88] [91].
• Initial Literature Search: Execute the search string across multiple academic databases. Export all retrieved citations and abstracts to your reference manager (e.g., Zotero AI).
• AI-Powered Screening & Data Extraction: a. Import the library from your reference manager into an AI tool like Paperguide or Elicit. b. Use the AI tool's "literature review" or "data extraction" function. The AI will process the abstracts and generate a structured table summarizing key information from each paper, such as TLDR (Too Long; Didn't Read) summaries, methodology details, key findings, and reported limitations [87]. c. Screen this AI-generated table to quickly identify the most relevant studies for full-text review, significantly reducing manual screening time.
• Deep Synthesis: For the selected high-priority papers, use the "Chat with PDF" feature (available in Paperguide and SciSpace) to ask specific questions about methodology (e.g., "What was the particle size and polymer type of the microplastics used?") and results (e.g., "What was the reported LC50 value?") [87]. This facilitates rapid data extraction from full-text documents.
• Validation: Manually review a subset of the AI-generated summaries and extracted data against the original papers to verify accuracy and ensure no critical information has been misinterpreted.

Protocol 2: Quantitative Data Analysis and Visualization

Objective: To statistically analyze extracted ecotoxicological data and create publication-ready visualizations.

Materials:

• Extracted Data: Compile quantitative data (e.g., LC50 values, effect sizes, mean responses) into a spreadsheet (CSV format).
• Data Analysis Tool: Julius AI.
• Statistical Guide: APA style guidelines for reporting statistics [92].

Methodology:

• Data Preparation: Structure your extracted data in a spreadsheet with clear column headers (e.g., StudyID, TreatmentConcentration, MeanMortality, SDMortality, N).
• Conversational Analysis: a. Upload the CSV file to Julius AI. b. Use natural language prompts to conduct analyses, for example: - "Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the LC50 values across all studies." - "Perform a correlation test between microplastic concentration and reproductive output." - "Create a forest plot showing the effect size and confidence interval for each study."
• Result Interpretation: Julius AI will execute the commands and provide the statistical outputs, including test statistic values, degrees of freedom, exact p-values, and effect sizes, which should be reported according to APA standards [92].
• Visualization Generation: Request specific charts (e.g., "Generate a bar chart comparing mean mortality across different polymer types"). Ensure that the chosen color palette has sufficient contrast for accessibility, avoiding problematic red/green color coding [93].

Visualization of Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz, illustrate the logical workflow of a systematic review and a common ecotoxicological pathway, adhering to the specified color and contrast rules.

Diagram 1: Systematic review workflow with integrated AI tools.

Diagram 2: Simplified toxicological pathway for microplastics in Daphnia.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key digital "reagents" – the software and platforms – that are essential for conducting a modern, efficient systematic review in ecotoxicology.

Table 3: Essential Digital Research Reagents for Systematic Reviews

Research Reagent (Tool)	Category	Function in Systematic Review
PICO Framework	Protocol Development	Provides a structured method to define the research question (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), ensuring a focused and answerable query [91].
PRISMA Guidelines	Protocol & Reporting	A set of evidence-based minimum standards for reporting in systematic reviews, ensuring transparency and completeness via a flow diagram and checklist [88].
Zotero AI	Reference Management	Serves as a centralized library for all collected references, with AI features to automatically extract metadata from PDFs and suggest citations [90].
Paperguide / Elicit	AI-Assisted Screening	Acts as a force multiplier during literature screening, using natural language processing to summarize thousands of papers and extract key findings into structured tables [87] [89].
Julius AI	Data Analysis & Visualization	Functions as a statistical and visual analytics engine, allowing researchers to analyze extracted data and generate plots using simple English commands, without requiring advanced coding skills [89].

Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Efficient Evidence Synthesis

Application Note: AI-Augmented Evidence Synthesis in Ecotoxicology

The exponential growth of scientific literature, coupled with increasing regulatory requirements like the European Commission's REACH legislation, has created critical bottlenecks in evidence synthesis within ecotoxicology [94]. Traditional systematic review methods, while rigorous, are exceptionally resource-intensive, requiring an average of 881 person-hours and 66 weeks per review according to a 2018 case study [95]. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies present transformative solutions to these challenges by automating labor-intensive processes while maintaining methodological rigor. Within ecotoxicology specifically, the emergence of specialized datasets like ADORE (Aquatic Toxicity Dataset for Organic Chemicals) provides structured, well-characterized data that is essential for training and validating AI models [94]. This application note outlines practical frameworks and protocols for integrating AI and ML technologies into evidence synthesis workflows, with particular emphasis on applications within ecotoxicological research and chemical risk assessment.

Quantitative Efficiency Gains from AI Integration

Table: Documented Efficiency Gains from AI Automation in Evidence Synthesis

AI Technology	Application Stage	Efficiency Metric	Performance Improvement	Source
Machine Learning	Abstract Screening	Time Reduction	>50% time reduction	[95]
Natural Language Processing	Abstract Review	Workload Reduction	5-to 6-fold decrease in review time	[95]
Systematic Review Automation	Citation Screening	Work Saved over Sampling	6- to 10-fold decreases in workload at 95% recall	[95]
AI-Assisted Dual-Screen Review	Full-Text Screening	Labor Reduction	>75% overall labor reduction	[95]
Machine Learning	Abstract Screening	Volume Reduction	55%–64% decrease in abstracts requiring manual review	[95]

The quantitative evidence demonstrates that AI technologies can substantially accelerate evidence synthesis workflows while maintaining rigorous standards. These efficiency gains are particularly valuable in ecotoxicology, where researchers must often process large chemical inventories and assess toxicity across multiple taxonomic groups [94]. The workload reduction achieved through AI automation enables more timely chemical safety assessments and facilitates the implementation of living systematic reviews that can incorporate emerging evidence in near-real-time.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: SLRᴬᴵ Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Ecotoxicology

The SLRᴬᴵ framework provides a structured approach for integrating AI tools throughout the systematic review process while maintaining essential human oversight [96]. This methodology is particularly suited to ecotoxicology research, where domain expertise is crucial for accurate toxicity assessment and chemical categorization.

Diagram 1: AI evidence synthesis workflow with human oversight

Procedure:

• Problem Formulation: Clearly define the ecotoxicology research question, specifying populations (test species), interventions/chemical exposures, comparators, and outcomes (toxicity endpoints) following established systematic review guidelines.
• Search Strategy Development: Combine Boolean search strings with AI-powered semantic search tools to identify relevant ecotoxicology literature across multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, specialized toxicology databases).
• Study Screening Implementation:
  • Upload search results to an AI-assisted screening platform (e.g., ASReview, Rayyan)
  • Manually screen a initial seed set of 50-100 relevant and non-relevant articles to train the ML algorithm
  • Utilize active learning to prioritize potentially relevant studies for manual review
  • Maintain human oversight with domain experts validating inclusion/exclusion decisions
• Data Extraction Process:
  • Implement NLP tools to automatically extract chemical names, test species, toxicity values, and experimental conditions
  • Validate automated extractions against manual extraction for a subset of studies
  • Resolve discrepancies through consensus discussions among review team members
• Evidence Synthesis: Apply AI techniques for quantitative synthesis where appropriate, including automated effect size calculations and sensitivity analyses.

Validation Measures: Calculate work saved over sampling (WSS@95%) to quantify efficiency gains, inter-rater agreement statistics for inclusion decisions, and accuracy metrics for automated data extraction compared to manual methods.

Protocol 2: Ecotoxicology-Specific ML Model Training Using ADORE Dataset

The ADORE dataset provides comprehensive aquatic toxicity data across three taxonomic groups (fish, crustaceans, and algae), making it particularly valuable for training ecotoxicology-specific ML models [94].

Diagram 2: ML model training with the ADORE dataset

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition and Preparation:
  • Obtain the ADORE dataset, which includes ecotoxicological experiments expanded with phylogenetic, species-specific, chemical properties, and molecular representations [94]
  • Preprocess data by handling missing values, normalizing numerical features, and encoding categorical variables
  • Engineer additional features relevant to ecotoxicology prediction tasks

• Model Training and Validation:

  • Implement appropriate train-test splitting strategies as described in the ADORE benchmark study
  • Train multiple ML algorithms (e.g., random forest, gradient boosting, neural networks) using the training subset
  • Perform hyperparameter optimization using cross-validation techniques
  • Evaluate model performance on the held-out test set using metrics appropriate for ecotoxicology applications

• Model Interpretation and Deployment:

  • Apply model interpretation techniques (e.g., SHAP values, feature importance) to identify key drivers of toxicity predictions
  • Validate model predictions against experimental data not included in the training process
  • Deploy validated models for toxicity prediction of new chemical compounds

Quality Control: Implement cross-validation strategies specific to ecotoxicology challenges, assess model calibration, and evaluate domain adaptation performance for chemical classes underrepresented in training data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential AI and Data Resources for Ecotoxicology Evidence Synthesis

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Application in Ecotoxicology Research	Access Information
Benchmark Datasets	ADORE (Aquatic Toxicity Dataset)	Provides standardized data for training and validating ML models predicting acute aquatic toxicity across three taxonomic groups	[94]
AI-Assisted Screening Platforms	ASReview, Rayyan AI	Accelerates title/abstract screening through active learning, prioritizing relevant ecotoxicology studies for manual review	[95]
Systematic Review Automation Frameworks	SLRᴬᴵ Framework	Provides structured methodology for integrating AI tools throughout review process with human oversight	[96]
Natural Language Processing Tools	NLP-based Data Extraction	Automates extraction of chemical names, test species, toxicity endpoints, and experimental conditions from literature	[95]
Chemical Property Databases	Molecular Representations & Chemical Properties	Enables quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling and chemical similarity analysis	[94]

These research reagents provide the foundational infrastructure for implementing AI-augmented evidence synthesis in ecotoxicology. The ADORE dataset addresses the critical need for standardized, well-curated ecotoxicology data essential for training robust ML models [94]. Meanwhile, the SLRᴬᴵ framework offers a methodological structure for maintaining scientific rigor while leveraging AI efficiencies [96].

Systematic review methods are transforming ecotoxicology by introducing structured, transparent, and objective approaches for evaluating chemical hazards. These methodologies address the critical need for reliable toxicity values in regulatory decision-making, moving beyond traditional narrative reviews that may be susceptible to bias and inconsistency. The development of evidence-based benchmarks for protecting ecological receptors depends on robust evaluation of primary toxicity studies, ensuring that risk assessments incorporate the best available science [43]. This application note outlines standardized protocols for implementing systematic reviews within regulatory ecotoxicology contexts, providing researchers and assessors with practical frameworks for toxicity value development and hazard assessment.

The adoption of systematic review principles represents a significant evolution in ecological risk assessment. Regulatory bodies worldwide now recognize that transparent methodology and comprehensive literature evaluation are essential for credible chemical safety evaluations. Frameworks such as the Ecotoxicological Study Reliability (EcoSR) framework and the ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase (ECOTOX) have emerged as authoritative resources that operationalize systematic review principles for ecological contexts [43] [46]. These tools enable consistent application of inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, and data synthesis across diverse chemical classes and taxonomic groups.

Key Frameworks and Their Applications

The EcoSR Framework for Study Reliability Assessment

The EcoSR framework provides a standardized approach for evaluating the internal validity and reliability of ecotoxicological studies. Developed specifically to address gaps in existing critical appraisal tools, this framework employs a two-tiered assessment system that first screens studies for basic applicability followed by a comprehensive evaluation of potential biases [43]. The framework adapts established risk-of-bias assessment methodologies from human health assessment while incorporating ecotoxicity-specific criteria relevant to regulatory bodies [43].

Key components of the EcoSR framework include:

• Customizable assessment goals that allow a priori specification of review parameters based on specific regulatory needs
• Comprehensive bias evaluation addressing experimental design, conduct, and reporting quality
• Transparent categorization of study reliability supporting defensible inclusion/exclusion decisions
• Enhanced reproducibility through standardized documentation requirements

This framework represents a significant advancement in ecological systematic reviews by providing the first comprehensive tool specifically designed to assess the full range of biases relevant to ecotoxicological studies, ultimately supporting more transparent and consistent toxicity value development [43].

The ECOTOX Knowledgebase: A Curated Data Resource

The ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase (ECOTOX) serves as the world's largest compilation of curated ecotoxicity data, supporting chemical safety assessments and ecological research through systematic literature review procedures [46]. Maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this knowledgebase provides single-chemical ecotoxicity data for over 12,000 chemicals and ecological species, with more than one million test results from over 50,000 references [46] [31].

The ECOTOX pipeline implements systematic review principles through:

• Comprehensive literature searches using chemical-specific terms across multiple search engines
• Structured screening processes with well-defined applicability criteria
• Standardized data extraction using controlled vocabularies
• Transparent documentation of exclusion reasons for rejected studies
• Quarterly updates to incorporate new evidence and maintain currency

This systematic approach to evidence assembly ensures that risk assessors have access to comprehensively gathered, consistently formatted toxicity data that supports various regulatory applications, including development of Aquatic Life Criteria, Soil Screening Levels, and chemical prioritization under programs such as the Toxic Substances Control Act [46] [31].

Application Notes: Implementing Systematic Reviews

Protocol Development and Study Screening

Implementing systematic reviews in regulatory ecotoxicology requires carefully structured protocols that define evidence requirements and assessment methodologies before initiating the review process. The Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome (PECO) framework provides a standardized approach for formulating review questions and establishing eligibility criteria [31] [61].

The screening phase employs explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify relevant studies efficiently. For regulatory applications, studies must meet minimum acceptability criteria including: toxic effects related to single chemical exposure; effects on aquatic or terrestrial species; biological effects on live, whole organisms; reported concentration/dose with explicit exposure duration; and comparison to concurrent controls [61]. The ECOTOX knowledgebase documents exclusion reasons for rejected studies, enhancing transparency, with common exclusion categories including: testing only bacteria or yeast; unavailable chemical CASRN; mixture exposures without single-chemical results; missing concentration or duration data; and non-English publications where translation is infeasible [31].

Data Extraction and Management

Standardized data extraction ensures consistent capture of study characteristics, methods, and results relevant to toxicity value development. The ECOTOX knowledgebase employs controlled vocabularies across multiple data domains to support structured data retrieval and interoperability [46]. Critical data elements for regulatory ecotoxicology include:

• Chemical identifiers: CASRN, DTXSID, chemical names, and synonyms
• Taxonomic information: verified species names with NCBI Taxonomy IDs and ITIS TSNs
• Experimental design: test duration, exposure pathway, temperature, and media characteristics
• Test conditions: control performance metrics, solubility verification, and chemical measurement
• Toxicity results: endpoints (LC50, EC50, NOEC, LOEC), effect concentrations, and statistical measures

This standardized extraction facilitates data integration across studies and enables quantitative analysis for derivative products such as Species Sensitivity Distributions (SSDs) and predictive models [46] [31].

Quantitative Data in Ecotoxicology

Ecotoxicological effects data are categorized based on the level of biological organization affected, with regulatory assessments prioritizing endpoints relevant to population-level sustainability. The distribution of curated records in the ECOTOX knowledgebase reflects this prioritization, with mortality and growth representing the most frequently reported effects.

Table 1: Distribution of Ecotoxicological Effects in Curated Records

Effect Category	Percentage of Records	Regulatory Significance
Mortality	26.9%	Population sustainability
Growth	14.6%	Reproductive fitness proxy
Population-level	16.9%	Direct ecological impact
Biochemical	13.8%	Mechanistic understanding
Physiology	6.7%	Organism function
Genetics	5.2%	Intergenerational effects
Reproduction	4.9%	Population sustainability
Accumulation	4.6%	Trophic transfer potential
Behavior	3.5%	Ecological interactions
Cellular	2.2%	Sublethal stress indicators
Ecosystem	0.1%	Community-level effects
Multiple	0.7%	Integrated responses

Source: Adapted from ECOTOX data summaries [31]

The increasing representation of biochemical and genetic effects reflects growing scientific capability to detect sublethal impacts and understand mechanisms of action, supporting the development of Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) and predictive toxicology approaches [31].

Experimental Protocols

Systematic Review Workflow for Toxicity Value Development

The following protocol outlines a standardized approach for conducting systematic reviews to support toxicity value development in regulatory contexts:

Protocol Title: Systematic Review for Ecological Toxicity Value Development Objective: To identify, evaluate, and synthesize evidence from ecotoxicological studies for derivation of reliable toxicity values Methodology:

• Problem Formulation and Protocol Registration

  • Define assessment goals and chemical scope
  • Specify PECO criteria: Population (ecologically relevant species), Exposure (single chemical, verified concentration), Comparator (control with acceptable performance), Outcome (measured biological effects)
  • Establish review protocol with pre-specified analysis plan

• Comprehensive Literature Search

  • Develop chemical-specific search strings using verified CASRN and synonyms
  • Execute searches across multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar)
  • Search specialized ecotoxicology resources (e.g., ECOTOX knowledgebase)
  • Document search strategy with dates, databases, and results

• Study Screening and Selection

  • Conduct title/abstract screening against eligibility criteria
  • Obtain full texts of potentially relevant studies
  • Perform full-text review with explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • Document reasons for exclusion at full-text stage
  • Resolve conflicts through independent dual review

• Data Extraction and Management

  • Extract study characteristics, methods, and results using standardized forms
  • Apply controlled vocabularies for chemical, species, and endpoint classification
  • Verify taxonomic identification using authoritative sources
  • Record quality assessment using appropriate tools (e.g., EcoSR framework)

• Evidence Synthesis and Integration

  • Categorize studies based on reliability and relevance
  • Conduct quantitative synthesis where appropriate (e.g., species sensitivity distributions)
  • Derive toxicity values using approved methods (e.g., benchmark dose modeling)
  • Assess confidence in evidence base using structured frameworks
  • Document conclusions and data gaps

Applications: This protocol supports various regulatory activities including development of Aquatic Life Criteria, Soil Screening Levels, and chemical prioritization under TSCA and pesticide registration programs [43] [46] [61].

EcoSR Framework Implementation for Study Evaluation

The EcoSR framework provides a standardized methodology for assessing reliability of ecotoxicological studies:

Application: Evaluate inherent scientific quality of ecotoxicological studies for inclusion in toxicity value development Procedure:

• Tier 1 - Preliminary Screening

  • Assess basic study applicability using minimum criteria
  • Exclude studies failing to meet fundamental requirements
  • Document screening decisions

• Tier 2 - Full Reliability Assessment

  • Evaluate risk of bias across multiple domains:
    • Experimental design adequacy
    • Chemical characterization and exposure verification
    • Control performance and appropriateness
    • Outcome measurement and reporting
    • Statistical analysis appropriateness
  • Apply domain-specific criteria with signaling questions
  • Categorize studies as high, medium, or low reliability
  • Document assessment with explicit rationale

• Integration for Toxicity Value Development

  • Prioritize higher reliability studies for point estimation
  • Incorporate lower reliability studies with appropriate caveats
  • Conduct sensitivity analyses to evaluate reliability impact
  • Document reliability assessment in final outputs

Output: Standardized reliability categorization supporting transparent study inclusion/exclusion decisions in toxicity value development [43].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Resources for Systematic Ecotoxicology Reviews

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	Curated ecotoxicity database with systematic review procedures	Primary source for toxicity data; supports chemical assessments and research [46]
EcoSR Framework	Reliability assessment tool for ecotoxicology studies	Evaluation of study quality and risk of bias for inclusion decisions [43]
PECO Framework	Structured approach for formulating review questions	Protocol development and study eligibility determination [31] [61]
Taxonomic Verification Tools (NCBI Taxonomy, ITIS)	Species identification and validation	Ensuring test organism relevance and proper classification [46]
Chemical Identification Resources (CAS RN, DTXSID)	Unique chemical identifiers	Accurate chemical tracking across studies and databases [46]
Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) Models	Statistical analysis of interspecies sensitivity	Derivation of protective concentration thresholds [31]
Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Framework	Organizing knowledge on toxicity mechanisms	Supporting use of non-traditional evidence and NAMs [13]

Visualization of Systematic Review Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete systematic review workflow for regulatory ecotoxicology, integrating both evidence assembly and evidence evaluation processes:

Systematic review methodologies have fundamentally enhanced the scientific rigor and regulatory credibility of ecological toxicity assessments. Frameworks such as EcoSR and infrastructure such as the ECOTOX knowledgebase provide standardized approaches for addressing the complex challenges of evidence evaluation in ecotoxicology. These methodologies support more transparent, consistent, and defensible toxicity value development while facilitating appropriate integration of diverse evidence streams.

The continued evolution of systematic review approaches in ecotoxicology will likely focus on method harmonization across regulatory jurisdictions, integration of new approach methodologies (NAMs), and enhanced computational efficiency for evidence synthesis. As these methodologies mature, they will further strengthen the scientific foundation for chemical management decisions aimed at protecting ecological systems.

Application Note: Integrating Big Data and Computational Toxicology in Ecotoxicology

The field of ecotoxicology is undergoing a paradigm shift, moving from traditional, observation-based methods towards a predictive science powered by big data analytics, high-throughput omics technologies, and sophisticated computational modeling [18] [97]. This transition is critical for addressing the challenge of assessing the environmental risk of thousands of existing and new chemicals, a task impossible through animal testing alone [98]. Framed within a systematic review methodology, this application note details the protocols and tools that form the cornerstone of this modern, evidence-based approach to ecotoxicological research.

The integration of these technologies allows for a more comprehensive and mechanistic understanding of how chemicals exert toxic effects on individuals, populations, and entire ecosystems [99] [36]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this means an enhanced ability to identify hazardous substances early in the development pipeline, prioritize chemicals for further testing, and fill critical data gaps in ecological risk assessment (ERA) [100] [101].

The Integrated Workflow

The synergy between Big Data, Omics, and QSAR/q-RASAR modeling creates a powerful pipeline for predictive ecotoxicology. The workflow, detailed in the diagram below, begins with large-scale data acquisition and progresses through molecular-level analysis to predictive computational modeling, ultimately supporting regulatory decisions.

Protocols

Protocol 1: Leveraging Big Data Repositories for Systematic Evidence Gathering

Objective

To systematically gather, curate, and analyze ecotoxicological data from large-scale public knowledgebases for use in meta-analyses, model development, and chemical risk assessment [101].

Materials and Reagents

Table: Key Research Reagents and Resources for Big Data Ecotoxicology

Resource/Reagent	Function in Research	Source/Availability
ECOTOX Knowledgebase	Centralized, curated database of single-chemical toxicity effects on aquatic and terrestrial species.	US EPA, publicly available [101]
CompTox Chemicals Dashboard	Provides complementary chemical information (structure, properties) for chemicals identified in ECOTOX.	US EPA, publicly available [101]
DrugBank Database	Repository of investigational and approved drugs for screening potential toxicants.	Publicly available [100]
Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB)	Source of physicochemical and environmental fate data for pesticides.	Publicly available [100]
Cloud Computing Platform (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud)	Provides scalable computational power and storage for analyzing large datasets.	Commercial/Public providers [102]

Experimental Procedure

• Problem Formulation: Define the scope of the systematic review, including the specific chemicals, species, or toxicological endpoints of interest.
• Data Extraction: a. Access the ECOTOX Knowledgebase Search or Explore feature [101]. b. Input search parameters (e.g., chemical name, CAS RN, species taxonomy, or effect measures like LC50). c. Apply relevant filters (e.g., exposure duration, endpoint, test medium) to refine the results.
• Data Verification and Curation: a. Use the linked CompTox Chemicals Dashboard to verify chemical identity and structures [101]. b. Cross-reference abstracted data with original source publications where possible to ensure accuracy. c. Resolve any discrepancies through expert judgment or by excluding unreliable data, following guidelines like those from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on data reliability [36].
• Data Analysis and Visualization: a. Export the filtered dataset for external analysis. b. Utilize the ECOTOX Data Visualization features to create interactive plots (e.g., species sensitivity distributions) [101]. c. Integrate data with other sources (e.g., omics data, chemical use information) for a holistic assessment.

Protocol 2: Implementing Multi-Omics Workflows for Mechanistic Insight

Objective

To holistically identify the molecular mechanisms of toxicity and discover sensitive biomarkers of chemical exposure by integrating genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics data [18] [99].

Materials and Reagents

Table: Essential Reagents for Multi-Omics Ecotoxicology

Resource/Reagent	Function in Research	Application Example
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Systems	Enables whole-genome (genomics) and transcriptome-wide (transcriptomics) analysis of organisms exposed to toxicants.	Identifying differentially expressed genes in zebrafish exposed to cadmium [18].
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry	Facilitates the large-scale identification and quantification of proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics).	Revealing protein expression changes in earthworms exposed to contaminated soil [18].
Bioinformatics Software Suites	Tools for processing, analyzing, and interpreting large, complex omics datasets.	Mapping molecular responses to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs).
Reference Genomes/Proteomes	Well-annotated genomic and protein sequences for the model organism under investigation.	Essential for aligning and annotating sequencing and mass spectrometry data.

Experimental Procedure

• Experimental Design: Expose test organisms (e.g., fish, invertebrates) to the chemical stressor at environmentally relevant concentrations, including controls. Use multiple biological replicates.
• Sample Collection: Harvest tissues of interest (e.g., liver, gills, whole organism for invertebrates) at multiple time points to capture dynamic responses.
• Molecular Profiling: a. Genomics: Extract DNA and sequence to identify genetic variations or mutations. b. Transcriptomics: Extract RNA, convert to cDNA, and sequence to profile global gene expression changes. c. Proteomics: Extract proteins, digest into peptides, and analyze via mass spectrometry to quantify protein abundance. d. Metabolomics: Extract small molecules and analyze via mass spectrometry to characterize metabolic profiles.
• Data Integration and Interpretation: a. Process raw data using specialized bioinformatics pipelines for each omics layer. b. Use statistical and machine learning methods to integrate multi-omics datasets and identify correlated changes across molecular tiers [99]. c. Interpret integrated molecular signatures in the context of physiological and toxicological outcomes to elucidate mechanisms of action.

Protocol 3: Developing and Applying QSAR and q-RASAR Models for Toxicity Prediction

Objective

To develop robust computational models that predict the ecotoxicity of chemicals based on their structural features and, for advanced models, the physiological traits of the target species [100] [98].

Materials and Reagents

Table: Computational Toolkit for Predictive Modeling

Resource/Reagent	Function in Research	Key Feature
Cheminformatics Software	Calculates chemical descriptors (e.g., topological, electronic, E-state indices) from molecular structure.	Generates input variables for QSAR models [100].
Machine Learning Libraries (e.g., in R/Python)	Provides algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, Support Vector Machines) for building predictive models.	Handles complex, non-linear relationships in toxicity data [18] [98].
Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) Parameters	Numeric variables describing species-specific physiology and energy allocation.	Enables cross-species predictions in Bio-QSARs [98].
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	A method from explainable AI to interpret model predictions and identify key drivers of toxicity.	Provides mechanistic insight into the model [98].

Experimental Procedure

• Dataset Curation: Compile a high-quality dataset of chemical structures and associated toxicity values (e.g., pTDLo, LC50) from sources like the ECOTOX Knowledgebase or TOXRIC database [100] [101].
• Data Pre-processing: a. Calculate chemical descriptors using cheminformatics software. b. For q-RASAR, generate additional similarity-based descriptors by comparing chemicals within the dataset [100]. c. For Bio-QSAR, compile physiological trait data (e.g., DEB parameters) for the relevant species [98]. d. Split the data into training (~80%) and external test sets (~20%).
• Model Development and Validation: a. Train the model using algorithms like Partial Least Squares (PLS) for QSAR/q-RASAR or Random Forest for Bio-QSAR on the training set. b. Perform internal validation (e.g., cross-validation, calculating Q²) to assess robustness [100]. c. Apply the model to the external test set to evaluate its predictive power (e.g., Q²F1, Q²F2) [100].
• Model Application and Interpretation: a. Use the validated model to screen new chemicals or existing databases (e.g., DrugBank) for potential toxicants [100]. b. Employ interpretation tools like SHAP analysis to identify which structural or physiological features are most influential in driving toxicity predictions [98].

Data Presentation and Analysis

Performance Comparison of Predictive Toxicity Models

The quantitative performance of different modeling approaches is crucial for selecting the right tool in a systematic assessment. The table below summarizes the validation metrics for recently published QSAR and q-RASAR models.

Table: Comparative Performance Metrics of Computational Toxicity Models

Model Type	Endpoint / Application	Key Features	Internal Validation (R²/Q²)	External Validation Metrics	Reference
Traditional QSAR	Acute human toxicity (pTDLo)	Chemical structure descriptors	Not specified	Not specified	[100]
q-RASAR	Acute human toxicity (pTDLo)	Combines QSAR with similarity-based descriptors	R² = 0.710, Q² = 0.658	Q²F1 = 0.812, Q²F2 = 0.812	[100]
Bio-QSAR (Fish)	Acute pesticide toxicity (LC50)	Includes species physiological traits (DEB)	-	R² = 0.85 (Test set)	[98]
Bio-QSAR (Invertebrate)	Acute pesticide toxicity (EC50)	Includes species physiological traits (DEB)	-	R² = 0.83 (Test set)	[98]

Analysis of Model Applications

The data shows a clear evolution in model capability. The q-RASAR model demonstrates superior predictive accuracy for human acute toxicity compared to traditional QSAR, evidenced by its strong external validation metrics (Q²F1/Q²F2 > 0.81) [100]. This makes it highly suitable for screening pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals.

The Bio-QSAR approach represents a breakthrough by incorporating numeric physiological traits, which allows for cross-species predictions beyond the taxa used in model training [98]. Its high explanatory power (R² > 0.83) and use of explainable AI (SHAP) make it particularly valuable for ecological risk assessments where data for many species are lacking.

Conclusion

Systematic review methodology represents a paradigm shift towards greater rigor and transparency in ecotoxicology, moving the field closer to evidence-based environmental decision-making. By adhering to a structured process—from a well-defined question and comprehensive search to a rigorous critical appraisal using frameworks like EcoSR—researchers can develop more reliable toxicity values and risk assessments. The integration of advanced digital tools and AI promises to overcome traditional challenges of time and resource constraints, allowing for more timely updates. The future of ecotoxicological research will be profoundly shaped by these systematic approaches, enabling clearer insights into the complex effects of environmental contaminants and directly supporting the development of safer chemicals and more effective environmental policies.

References

• 1. The difference between a systematic and a review literature review [https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-a-systematic-review-and-a-literature-review/]
• 2. Understanding the Differences Between a Systematic ... Review vs [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/understanding-the-differences-between-a-systematic-review-vs-literature-review]
• 3. How to structure your Table for Systematic and... Review [https://pubrica.com/academy/literature-review/how-to-structure-your-table-for-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/]
• 4. or Systematic | Elsevier Literature Review Literature Review [https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/research-process/systematic-literature-review-or-literature-review/]
• 5. 2 Evaluation of the TSCA Systematic Approach | The Use of... Review [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25952/chapter/4]
• 6. Summary of Findings Table in a Systematic - DistillerSR Review [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/summary-of-findings-table-in-a-systematic-review]
• 7. Enhancing Public Health Systematic Reviews With Diagram Visualization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8101596/]
• 8. | Home Ecotoxicology [https://www.springer.com/journal/10646?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6d059798-9ee6-46d8-a687-5535620b470d]
• 9. of emerging contaminants on soil and... Ecological risk assessment [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40259118/]
• 10. Steps in a Systematic Review - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides at Louisiana State University [https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/c.php?g=872965&p=6268540]
• 11. Identifying the PECO : A framework for formulating good questions to... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6908441/]
• 12. The use of ‘ PICO for synthesis’ and... | F1000 Research [https://f1000research.com/articles/9-678]
• 13. Assessment of Ecotoxicity - A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253975/]
• 14. ( Ecotoxicology -2026), 2024- 2025 - Studiegids - Universiteit... 2025 [https://studiegids.universiteitleiden.nl/courses/123732/ecotoxicology-2025-2026]
• 15. sciencedirect.com/journal/ ecotoxicology -and-environmental-safety [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ecotoxicology-and-environmental-safety]
• 16. Statistics for Analyzing Ecotoxicity Test Data | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/978-94-007-5704-2_98]
• 17. Progress on New Approach Methods (NAMs) in Ecotoxicology [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40216585/]
• 18. Advanced Ecotoxicology Techniques [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/advanced-ecotoxicology-techniques]
• 19. Data Science and Machine Learning [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591551/]
• 20. Combining non-targeted high resolution mass spectrometry with... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40088784/]
• 21. | springerprofessional.de Aquatic Ecotoxicology [https://www.springerprofessional.de/aquatic-ecotoxicology/26873478]
• 22. Environmental and Health Resources - Chemical Safety - Research Guides at University of Wisconsin-Madison [https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/c.php?g=178138&p=1167363]
• 23. The ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase: A Curated Database of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35262228/]
• 24. Preregistration [https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg]
• 25. Statistics for Analyzing Ecotoxicity Test Data | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-94-007-5704-2_98]
• 26. Arrows in Biology: Lack of Clarity and Consistency Points to Confusion for Learners - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6007777/]
• 27. Text has enhanced contrast | ACT Rule | WAI | W3C [https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/09o5cg/]
• 28. The PICO framework for framing research... systematic review [https://pubrica.com/academy/systematic-review/the-pico-framework-for-framing-systematic-review-research-questions/]
• 29. Commentary: Methods the Framing and... - DistillerSR Question [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/methodological-resources/framing-the-question-and-a-priori-hypotheses]
• 30. Estimating ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on tropical... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-021-00250-y]
• 31. Collecting, Evaluating, and Communicating Ecotoxicology ... Data [https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/collecting-evaluating-and-communicating-ecotoxicology-data-ecotox-knowledgebase/277681669]
• 32. How to Avoid in Your Bias Review Systematic [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/how-do-you-ensure-unbiased-studies-your-systematic-review]
• 33. How to write a search for your strategy review - Covidence systematic [https://www.covidence.org/blog/how-to-write-a-search-strategy-for-your-systematic-review/]
• 34. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey ... literature [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0]
• 35. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey ... literature [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26494010/]
• 36. The Role of Behavioral Ecotoxicology in Environmental Protection... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935421/]
• 37. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6327109/]
• 38. Frontiers | A Protocol for the Use of Case Reports/ Studies and Case... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.708380/full]
• 39. and Inclusion | Examples & Definition Exclusion Criteria [https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inclusion-exclusion-criteria/]
• 40. A systematic survey of regional multi-taxon biodiversity: evaluating... [https://bmcecol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12898-019-0260-x]
• 41. Selecting Studies for Systematic : Review and Inclusion ... Exclusion [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/selecting-studies-for-systematic-review-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria]
• 42. Step 7: Data Extraction & Charting - Scoping & Systematic Reviews ... [https://apu.libguides.com/reviews/step7]
• 43. An integrated ecotoxicological study reliability for use in... framework [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39873747/]
• 44. Research projects - Ecotoxicology and Models [https://www.ecotoxmodels.org/ashauer-lab/research-projects/]
• 45. and Qualitative Results in Health Science... Integrating Quantitative [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4639381/]
• 46. The ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase: A Curated Database of Ecologically Relevant Toxicity Tests to Support Environmental Research and Risk Assessment - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9408435/]
• 47. Downloadable Computational Toxicology Data | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/downloadable-computational-toxicology-data]
• 48. vs Systematic : Key Differences (2025) Review Meta Analysis [https://paperguide.ai/blog/systematic-review-vs-meta-analysis/]
• 49. The use of ‘PICO for synthesis ’ and methods for synthesis without... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7919603/]
• 50. A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227668/]
• 51. SSPH+ | A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences [https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/articles/10.3389/phrs.2023.1605454/full]
• 52. Meta-analysis Shiny Application Guideline - 3 Data Visualization [https://bookdown.org/wjdtkddud555/meta-analysis_shiny_application_guideline/data_visulization.html]
• 53. Charting the landscape of graphical displays for meta-analysis and systematic reviews: a comprehensive review, taxonomy, and feature analysis | BMC Medical Research Methodology | Full Text [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-020-0911-9]
• 54. Dynamic heterogeneity : a framework to promote ecological... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-016-0574-9]
• 55. in Environmental Science: Impact and Adaptation Heterogeneity [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/heterogeneity-environmental-science-impact-adaptation]
• 56. DataViz protocols [https://joachimgoedhart.github.io/DataViz-protocols/]
• 57. Graph Visualization: Alternative Models Inspired by Bioinformatics ... [https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099065]
• 58. A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28501917/]
• 59. tools - ROBINS-E tool Risk of bias [https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-e-tool]
• 60. (Eco)toxicological tests for assessing impacts of chemical stress to aquatic ecosystems: Facts, challenges, and future - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34328937/]
• 61. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/evaluation-guidelines-ecological-toxicity-data-open]
• 62. Systematic Review Protocol | Environmental Evidence [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/systematic-review-protocol]
• 63. From Data Chaos to Clarity: Best for Practices ... Managing Complex [https://www.kitware.com/from-data-chaos-to-clarity-best-practices-for-managing-complex-datasets/]
• 64. Data Collaboration: What Is It And Why Do Teams Need It? [https://lakefs.io/blog/data-collaboration/]
• 65. Scaling with Dbt Mesh: Simplifying Complex Data Workflows | Data-Sleek [https://data-sleek.com/blog/scaling-with-dbt-mesh-simplifying-complex-data-workflows/]
• 66. Top 10 Best for Practices and Cleansing Managing Large Datasets [https://datagroomr.com/top-10-best-practices-for-managing-and-cleansing-large-datasets/]
• 67. Presentation of Quantitative Data | PSM Made Easy [https://ihatepsm.com/blog/presentation-quantitative-data]
• 68. Statistical data presentation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5453888/]
• 69. Presenting Quantitative Data Graphically | Mathematics for the Liberal Arts [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymakermath4libarts/chapter/presenting-quantitative-data-graphically/]
• 70. 5 software tools to support your systematic review processes [https://www.ifis.org/en/research-skills-blog/software-tools-to-support-your-systematic-review-processes]
• 71. Digital Tools to Support the Systematic Review Process: An Introduction - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035789/]
• 72. 5 Software Tools to Help You With Systematic Reviews [https://library.setu.ie/5-software-tools-to-help-with-systematic-reviews/]
• 73. Top Systematic Software Tools Compared in Review 2025 [https://blog.hifivestar.com/posts/top-systematic-review-software-2025]
• 74. - Better Covidence systematic review management [https://www.covidence.org/]
• 75. EPPI-Reviewer: systematic review software [https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4/]
• 76. About EPPI-Reviewer [http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/About/AboutEPPIReviewer/tabid/2967/Default.aspx]
• 77. Introducing Covidence : The Library’s Tool for Faster Reviews [https://www.atsu.edu/news/introducing-covidence-the-librarys-tool-for-faster-reviews]
• 78. What is publication in a bias - Academy systematic review [https://pubrica.com/academy/concepts-definitions/what-is-publication-bias-in-a-systematic-review/]
• 79. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2656561/]
• 80. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9382404/]
• 81. Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication in... bias [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23885765/]
• 82. for seasonal variation and time trend in case-crossover... Control [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10468428/]
• 83. sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/ environmental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/environmental-exposure]
• 84. Principles and framework for assessing the risk for studies... of bias [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-022-00264-0]
• 85. High time to Update Statistical Guidance in Ecotoxicology-A Workshop Synthesis on the Revision of OECD Document No.54 - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40824079/]
• 86. tools Risk of bias [https://www.riskofbias.info/]
• 87. 7 Best AI Assistant Research for Scientific Tools in Research 2025 [https://paperguide.ai/blog/ai-research-assistant-tools-for-scientific-research/]
• 88. What is a Systematic in Research with examples Review [https://paperguide.ai/blog/what-is-a-systematic-review-in-research/]
• 89. 10 Best AI for Tools (Data Research , Paper Writing...) 2025 Analysis [https://screenapp.io/blog/best-ai-tools-for-research]
• 90. Top 10 AI for Tools in Researchers 2025 [https://www.yomu.ai/blog/top-10-ai-tools-for-researchers-in-2025]
• 91. Writing Systematic for 2024- Review Studies Protocols 2025 [https://editverse.com/writing-systematic-review-protocols-for-2024-2025-studies/]
• 92. Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples [https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/results-section/]
• 93. Accessibility at Penn State | Color Coding [https://accessibility.psu.edu/color/colorcoding/]
• 94. A benchmark dataset for machine in learning ecotoxicology [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37853023/]
• 95. Frontiers | How much can we save by applying artificial intelligence in... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1454245/full]
• 96. SLRᴬᴵ: A Systematic Review and Methodological Framework... :: SSRN [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5394910]
• 97. Feature Papers in Ecotoxicology - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12101430/]
• 98. Bio-QSARs: the inclusion of physiological trait information in machine learning QSARs allows predictions across species - EcotoxBlog [https://ecotox-blog.uni-landau.de/cross-species-ecotoxicity-predictions-physiological-traits/]
• 99. Application of Multi- Omics Techniques in Aquatic Ecotoxicology ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40863928/]
• 100. Revolutionizing toxicity predictions of diverse chemicals to protect human health: Comparative QSAR and q-RASAR modeling - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40602695/]
• 101. (ECOTOX) Knowledgebase Resource Hub | US EPA Ecotoxicology [https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/ecotoxicology-ecotox-knowledgebase-resource-hub]
• 102. Cloud-Centric Big Ecosystems in Data : A Strategic Imperative for... 2025 [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cloud-centric-big-data-ecosystems-2025-strategic-hern%C3%A1ndez-c--jjjme]