A UK framework for the assessment and integration of different scientific evidence streams in chemical risk assessment

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105652
Barbara Doerr , Phil Botham , Gill Clare , David Gott , Alison Gowers , Valentina Guercio , Gunter Kuhnle , George Loizou , David P. Lovell , Neil Pearce , Lesley Rushton , Mireille Toledano , Heather M. Wallace , Alan R. Boobis
{"title":"A UK framework for the assessment and integration of different scientific evidence streams in chemical risk assessment","authors":"Barbara Doerr ,&nbsp;Phil Botham ,&nbsp;Gill Clare ,&nbsp;David Gott ,&nbsp;Alison Gowers ,&nbsp;Valentina Guercio ,&nbsp;Gunter Kuhnle ,&nbsp;George Loizou ,&nbsp;David P. Lovell ,&nbsp;Neil Pearce ,&nbsp;Lesley Rushton ,&nbsp;Mireille Toledano ,&nbsp;Heather M. Wallace ,&nbsp;Alan R. Boobis","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Few methods are available for transparently combining different evidence streams for chemical risk assessment to reach an integrated conclusion on the probability of causation. Hence, the UK Committees on Toxicity (COT) and on Carcinogenicity (COC) have reviewed current practice and developed guidance on how to achieve this in a transparent manner, using graphical visualisation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods/approach</h3><p>All lines of evidence, including toxicological, epidemiological, new approach methodologies, and mode of action should be considered, taking account of their strengths/weaknesses in their relative weighting towards a conclusion on the probability of causation. A qualitative estimate of the probability of causation is plotted for each line of evidence and a combined estimate provided.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion/conclusions</h3><p>Guidance is provided on integration of multiple lines of evidence for causation, based on current best practice. Qualitative estimates of probability for each line of evidence are plotted graphically. This ensures a deliberative, consensus conclusion on likelihood of causation is reached. It also ensures clear communication of the influence of the different lines of evidence on the overall conclusion on causality. Issues on which advice from the respective Committees is sought varies considerably, hence the guidance is designed to be sufficiently flexible to meet this need.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 105652"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323002400093X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Few methods are available for transparently combining different evidence streams for chemical risk assessment to reach an integrated conclusion on the probability of causation. Hence, the UK Committees on Toxicity (COT) and on Carcinogenicity (COC) have reviewed current practice and developed guidance on how to achieve this in a transparent manner, using graphical visualisation.

Methods/approach

All lines of evidence, including toxicological, epidemiological, new approach methodologies, and mode of action should be considered, taking account of their strengths/weaknesses in their relative weighting towards a conclusion on the probability of causation. A qualitative estimate of the probability of causation is plotted for each line of evidence and a combined estimate provided.

Discussion/conclusions

Guidance is provided on integration of multiple lines of evidence for causation, based on current best practice. Qualitative estimates of probability for each line of evidence are plotted graphically. This ensures a deliberative, consensus conclusion on likelihood of causation is reached. It also ensures clear communication of the influence of the different lines of evidence on the overall conclusion on causality. Issues on which advice from the respective Committees is sought varies considerably, hence the guidance is designed to be sufficiently flexible to meet this need.

Abstract Image

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
英国化学品风险评估中不同科学证据流的评估与整合框架。
背景:目前很少有方法能以透明的方式将化学品风险评估中的不同证据流结合起来,从而得出关于因果关系概率的综合结论。因此,英国毒性委员会(COT)和致癌性委员会(COC)对当前的做法进行了审查,并就如何以透明的方式实现这一目标制定了指南,使用的方法是图形可视化方法/方法:应考虑所有的证据,包括毒理学、流行病学、新方法学和作用模式,并考虑它们在得出因果关系概率结论时的相对权重的强弱。对每种证据的因果关系概率进行定性估计,并提供综合估计值:以当前最佳实践为基础,为整合多方面因果关系证据提供指导。每项证据的概率定性估计值以图表形式绘制。这可确保就因果关系的可能性达成深思熟虑、协商一致的结论。它还能确保清楚地传达不同证据对因果关系总体结论的影响。需要征求各委员会意见的问题差别很大,因此指南的设计要足够灵活,以满足这一需要。
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
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
期刊最新文献
A weight of evidence evaluation on the immunosuppressive potential of xylene 10-step systemic safety assessment of extractables and leachables associated with drug products integrating topline, traditional, and next generation risk assessment Evaluation of mutagenicity and genotoxicity of food additive maltitol (E 965 i) FIH dose selection beyond MABEL: Optimizing phase 1 clinical trial starting dose whilst protecting patient safety A scheme for the assessment and definition of tolerable uncertainty in read-across for toxicological data gap filling
×
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:604180095
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