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 , 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","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.
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)