Interventional probability of causation (IPoC) with epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence: benzene vs. formaldehyde and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY Critical Reviews in Toxicology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435
Louis A Cox, William J Thompson, Kenneth A Mundt
{"title":"Interventional probability of causation (IPoC) with epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence: benzene vs. formaldehyde and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).","authors":"Louis A Cox, William J Thompson, Kenneth A Mundt","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Causal epidemiology for regulatory risk analysis seeks to evaluate how removing or reducing exposures would change disease occurrence rates. We define <i>interventional probability of causation</i> (IPoC) as the change in probability of a disease (or other harm) occurring over a lifetime or other specified time interval that would be caused by a specified change in exposure, as predicted by a fully specified causal model. We define the closely related concept of <i>causal assigned share</i> (CAS) as the predicted fraction of disease risk that would be removed or prevented by a specified reduction in exposure, holding other variables fixed. Traditional approaches used to evaluate the preventable risk implications of epidemiological associations, including population attributable fraction (PAF) and the Bradford Hill considerations, cannot reveal whether removing a risk factor would reduce disease incidence. We argue that modern formal causal models coupled with causal artificial intelligence (CAI) and realistically partial and imperfect knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms, show great promise for determining and quantifying IPoC and CAS for exposures and diseases of practical interest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We briefly review key CAI concepts and terms and then apply them to define IPoC and CAS. We present steps to quantify IPoC using a fully specified causal Bayesian network (BN) model. Useful bounds for quantitative IPoC and CAS calculations are derived for a two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model for carcinogenesis and illustrated by applying them to benzene and formaldehyde based on available epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Causal BN models for benzene and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporating mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological findings show that prolonged high-intensity exposure to benzene can increase risk of AML (IPoC of up to 7e-5, CAS of up to 54%). By contrast, no causal pathway leading from formaldehyde exposure to increased risk of AML was identified, consistent with much previous mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological evidence; therefore, the IPoC and CAS for formaldehyde-induced AML are likely to be zero.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We conclude that the IPoC approach can differentiate between likely and unlikely causal factors and can provide useful upper bounds for IPoC and CAS for some exposures and diseases of practical importance. For causal factors, IPoC can help to estimate the quantitative impacts on health risks of reducing exposures, even in situations where mechanistic evidence is realistically incomplete and individual-level exposure-response parameters are uncertain. This illustrates the strength that can be gained for causal inference by using causal models to generate testable hypotheses and then obtaining toxicological data to test the hypotheses implied by the models-and, where necessary, refine the models. This virtuous cycle provides additional insight into causal determinations that may not be available from weight-of-evidence considerations alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"252-289"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Causal epidemiology for regulatory risk analysis seeks to evaluate how removing or reducing exposures would change disease occurrence rates. We define interventional probability of causation (IPoC) as the change in probability of a disease (or other harm) occurring over a lifetime or other specified time interval that would be caused by a specified change in exposure, as predicted by a fully specified causal model. We define the closely related concept of causal assigned share (CAS) as the predicted fraction of disease risk that would be removed or prevented by a specified reduction in exposure, holding other variables fixed. Traditional approaches used to evaluate the preventable risk implications of epidemiological associations, including population attributable fraction (PAF) and the Bradford Hill considerations, cannot reveal whether removing a risk factor would reduce disease incidence. We argue that modern formal causal models coupled with causal artificial intelligence (CAI) and realistically partial and imperfect knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms, show great promise for determining and quantifying IPoC and CAS for exposures and diseases of practical interest.

Methods: We briefly review key CAI concepts and terms and then apply them to define IPoC and CAS. We present steps to quantify IPoC using a fully specified causal Bayesian network (BN) model. Useful bounds for quantitative IPoC and CAS calculations are derived for a two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model for carcinogenesis and illustrated by applying them to benzene and formaldehyde based on available epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence.

Results: Causal BN models for benzene and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporating mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological findings show that prolonged high-intensity exposure to benzene can increase risk of AML (IPoC of up to 7e-5, CAS of up to 54%). By contrast, no causal pathway leading from formaldehyde exposure to increased risk of AML was identified, consistent with much previous mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological evidence; therefore, the IPoC and CAS for formaldehyde-induced AML are likely to be zero.

Conclusion: We conclude that the IPoC approach can differentiate between likely and unlikely causal factors and can provide useful upper bounds for IPoC and CAS for some exposures and diseases of practical importance. For causal factors, IPoC can help to estimate the quantitative impacts on health risks of reducing exposures, even in situations where mechanistic evidence is realistically incomplete and individual-level exposure-response parameters are uncertain. This illustrates the strength that can be gained for causal inference by using causal models to generate testable hypotheses and then obtaining toxicological data to test the hypotheses implied by the models-and, where necessary, refine the models. This virtuous cycle provides additional insight into causal determinations that may not be available from weight-of-evidence considerations alone.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
具有流行病学和部分机理证据的干预性因果关系概率 (IpoC):苯与甲醛和急性髓性白血病 (AML)。
导言:用于监管风险分析的因果流行病学旨在评估消除或减少暴露会如何改变疾病发生率。我们将干预性因果概率 (IPoC) 定义为:根据完全特定的因果模型预测,在一生中或其他特定时间间隔内,由特定暴露变化引起的疾病(或其他伤害)发生概率的变化。我们将与之密切相关的因果分配比例(CAS)概念定义为,在其他变量固定不变的情况下,通过减少特定的暴露量而消除或预防的疾病风险预测分数。用于评估流行病学关联的可预防风险影响的传统方法,包括人口可归因分数(PAF)和布拉德福德-希尔(Bradford Hill)考虑因素,无法揭示去除某一风险因素是否会降低疾病发病率。我们认为,现代正规因果模型与因果人工智能(CAI)以及对潜在疾病机制的部分和不完善的现实知识相结合,在确定和量化实际意义上的暴露和疾病的 IPoC 和 CAS 方面大有可为:我们简要回顾了 CAI 的关键概念和术语,然后将其应用于定义 IPoC 和 CAS。我们介绍了使用完全指定的因果贝叶斯网络(BN)模型量化 IPoC 的步骤。根据现有的流行病学证据和部分机理证据,我们得出了两阶段克隆扩增(TSCE)致癌模型的 IPoC 和 CAS 定量计算的有用界限,并将其应用于苯和甲醛:苯与急性髓性白血病(AML)风险的因果 BN 模型结合了机理、毒理学和流行病学研究结果,表明长期高强度接触苯会增加急性髓性白血病的风险(IpoC 高达 7e-5,CAS 高达 54%)。相比之下,没有发现从接触甲醛到增加急性髓细胞性白血病风险的因果途径,这与之前的许多机理、毒理学和流行病学证据一致;因此,甲醛诱发急性髓细胞性白血病的 IPoC 和 CAS 很可能为零:我们得出的结论是,IpoC 方法可以区分可能的和不可能的致病因素,并能为某些具有实际重要性的暴露和疾病提供有用的 IPoC 和 CAS 上限。对于因果因素,IpoC 可以帮助估算减少暴露对健康风险的定量影响,即使在机理证据不完整、个体水平的暴露-反应参数不确定的情况下也是如此。这说明,通过使用因果模型来产生可检验的假设,然后获取毒理学数据来检验模型所隐含的假设--并在必要时对模型进行完善--可以增强因果推断的能力。这种良性循环为因果判定提供了更多的洞察力,而这些洞察力可能无法仅从证据权重的考量中获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
期刊最新文献
Xylene: weight of evidence approach case study to determine the need for an extended one generation reproductive study with a developmental neurotoxicity animal cohort. A critical review to identify data gaps and improve risk assessment of bisphenol A alternatives for human health. Review of epidemiological and toxicological studies on health effects from ingestion of asbestos in drinking water. Objective causal predictions from observational data. Mode of action of dieldrin-induced liver tumors: application to human risk assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1