SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

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

Doerr, B; Botham, P; Clare, G; Gott, D; Gowers, A; Guercio, V; Gunter Kuhnle, ; Loizou, G; Lovell, DP; Pearce, N; et al. Doerr, B; Botham, P; Clare, G; Gott, D; Gowers, A; Guercio, V; Gunter Kuhnle; Loizou, G; Lovell, DP; Pearce, N; Rushton, L; Toledano, M; Wallace, HM; Boobis, AR (2024) A UK framework for the assessment and integration of different scientific evidence streams in chemical risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 151. p. 105652. ISSN 1096-0295 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105652
SGUL Authors: Lovell, David

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License Open Government Licence 3.0.

Download (2MB) | Preview

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.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the Open Government License (OGL) (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/).
Keywords: Causal relationship, Causality, Data integration, Data synthesis, Epidemiology, Integration, Mode of action, Toxicology, Risk Assessment, Humans, United Kingdom, Animals, Probability, Animals, Humans, Probability, Risk Assessment, United Kingdom, Integration, Epidemiology, Toxicology, Data integration, Data synthesis, Causality, Causal relationship, Mode of action, Animals, Humans, Probability, Risk Assessment, United Kingdom, Causal relationship, Causality, Data integration, Data synthesis, Epidemiology, Integration, Mode of action, Toxicology, 1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toxicology
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Population Health Research Institute (INPH)
Journal or Publication Title: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol
ISSN: 1096-0295
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
8 June 2024Published
3 June 2024Published Online
30 May 2024Accepted
Publisher License: Open Government Licence 3.0
PubMed ID: 38839030
Web of Science ID: WOS:001257420200001
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/116804
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105652

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item