A critical review on the toxicological and epidemiological evidence integration for assessing human health risks to environmental chemical exposures.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Gabriele Donzelli, Ronette Gehring, Sivakumar Murugadoss, Tom Roos, Alexandra Schaffert, Nunzia Linzalone
{"title":"A critical review on the toxicological and epidemiological evidence integration for assessing human health risks to environmental chemical exposures.","authors":"Gabriele Donzelli, Ronette Gehring, Sivakumar Murugadoss, Tom Roos, Alexandra Schaffert, Nunzia Linzalone","doi":"10.1515/reveh-2024-0072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Toxicology and epidemiology are the two traditional public health scientific disciplines which can contribute to investigate harmful health effects of exposure to toxic substances. Several frameworks for integrating different lines of evidence were proposed since 2011, evolving based of the emergence of new methodologies and approaches. Through the comparison of various theoretical frameworks for evidence integration, we examined similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses to provide insights into potential directions for future research. We identified several key challenges of the integration approach to be applied to risk assessment. More specifically, collaboration within a multidisciplinary team of scientists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and risk assessors, is strongly recommended to be aligned with key regulatory objectives and promote a harmonized approach. Moreover, literature search transparency and systematicity have to be ensured by following validated guidelines, developing parallel protocols for collecting epidemiological and toxicological evidence from various sources, including human, animal, and new approach methodologies (NAMs). Also, the adoption of tailored quality assessment tools is essential to grade the certainty in evidence. Lastly, we recommend the use of the Adverse Outcome Pathway framework to provide a structured understanding of toxicity mechanisms and allow the integration of human, animal, and NAMs data within a single framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":21165,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on Environmental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0072","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Toxicology and epidemiology are the two traditional public health scientific disciplines which can contribute to investigate harmful health effects of exposure to toxic substances. Several frameworks for integrating different lines of evidence were proposed since 2011, evolving based of the emergence of new methodologies and approaches. Through the comparison of various theoretical frameworks for evidence integration, we examined similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses to provide insights into potential directions for future research. We identified several key challenges of the integration approach to be applied to risk assessment. More specifically, collaboration within a multidisciplinary team of scientists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and risk assessors, is strongly recommended to be aligned with key regulatory objectives and promote a harmonized approach. Moreover, literature search transparency and systematicity have to be ensured by following validated guidelines, developing parallel protocols for collecting epidemiological and toxicological evidence from various sources, including human, animal, and new approach methodologies (NAMs). Also, the adoption of tailored quality assessment tools is essential to grade the certainty in evidence. Lastly, we recommend the use of the Adverse Outcome Pathway framework to provide a structured understanding of toxicity mechanisms and allow the integration of human, animal, and NAMs data within a single framework.

对毒理学和流行病学证据整合进行批判性审查,以评估环境化学品暴露对人类健康造成的风险。
毒理学和流行病学是两门传统的公共卫生学科,它们有助于调查接触有毒物质对健康的有害影响。自2011年以来,提出了几个整合不同证据线的框架,这些框架是根据新方法和方法的出现而发展的。通过对各种证据整合理论框架的比较,我们分析了证据整合理论框架的异同、优势和不足,为未来的研究提供了可能的方向。我们确定了应用于风险评估的集成方法的几个关键挑战。更具体地说,强烈建议由科学家、毒理学家、流行病学家和风险评估人员组成的多学科团队进行合作,以配合关键监管目标,并促进协调一致的方法。此外,必须遵循经过验证的指南,制定从各种来源(包括人类、动物和新方法方法论)收集流行病学和毒理学证据的平行方案,以确保文献检索的透明度和系统性。此外,采用量身定制的质量评估工具对证据的确定性进行评级至关重要。最后,我们建议使用不良结果通路框架来提供对毒性机制的结构化理解,并允许在单一框架内整合人类,动物和NAMs数据。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Reviews on Environmental Health
Reviews on Environmental Health Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Reviews on Environmental Health (REVEH) is an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to fill the need for publication of review articles on hot topics in the field of environmental health. Reviews on Environmental Health aims to be an inspiring forum for scientists, environmentalists, physicians, engineers, and students who are concerned with aspects of human health, including quality of life, that are determined by physiological and psychosociological interactions between man and physical, chemical, biological, and social factors in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health is an important niche served by no other journal, that’s being a site where thoughtful reviews can be published on a variety of subjects related to both health and environment. One challenge is to bridge the research on environmental causes of disease with the clinical practice of medicine. Reviews on Environmental Health is a source of integrated information on environment and health subjects that will be of value to the broad scientific community, whether students, junior and senior professionals, or clinicians.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信