Daniele S Wikoff, Melissa J Vincent, Melissa M Heintz, Susan T Pastula, Heidi Reichert, William D Klaren, Laurie C Haws
{"title":"在风险评估中使用观察数据时,应用定量不确定性评估来确定合理的毒性值范围:一个审查全氟辛烷磺酸和全氟辛烷磺酸暴露与疫苗反应之间关系的案例研究。","authors":"Daniele S Wikoff, Melissa J Vincent, Melissa M Heintz, Susan T Pastula, Heidi Reichert, William D Klaren, Laurie C Haws","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfae152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional approaches for quantitatively characterizing uncertainty in risk assessment require adaptation to accommodate increased reliance on observational (vs experimental) studies in developing toxicity values. Herein, a case study with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS and vaccine response explores approaches for qualitative and-where possible-quantitative assessments of uncertainty at each step in the toxicity value development process when using observational data, including review and appraisal of individual studies, candidate study selection, dose-response modeling, and application of uncertainty factors. Each of the 15 studies identified had uncertainties due to risk of bias in confounding, outcome, and exposure ascertainment, likely contributing to the observed inconsistencies within and across studies, and resulting in lack of candidacy for dose-response assessment. Nonetheless, 2 representative studies were selected to demonstrate possible methods to quantify uncertainty in the remaining steps. Data simulations indicated lack of a clear dose-response relationship; dose-response models fit to representative simulations indicated high uncertainty in both the magnitude and direction of effect with simulated benchmark dose and its lower limit values varying at least 66- and 86-fold for PFOA and PFOS. Uncertainty factor application added minimal uncertainty. Combined, a high level of uncertainty was observed, precluding the ability to confidently assess causal dose-response relationships with the observational data, alone. This case study highlights the need for quantitative uncertainty analysis when developing toxicity values with observational data and, importantly, emphasizes the need for application of additional techniques to directly assess causality and the specificity of dose-response when relying on studies of association in quantitative risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"96-115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of a quantitative uncertainty assessment to develop ranges of plausible toxicity values when using observational data in risk assessment: a case study examining associations between PFOA and PFOS exposures and vaccine response.\",\"authors\":\"Daniele S Wikoff, Melissa J Vincent, Melissa M Heintz, Susan T Pastula, Heidi Reichert, William D Klaren, Laurie C Haws\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/toxsci/kfae152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traditional approaches for quantitatively characterizing uncertainty in risk assessment require adaptation to accommodate increased reliance on observational (vs experimental) studies in developing toxicity values. Herein, a case study with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS and vaccine response explores approaches for qualitative and-where possible-quantitative assessments of uncertainty at each step in the toxicity value development process when using observational data, including review and appraisal of individual studies, candidate study selection, dose-response modeling, and application of uncertainty factors. Each of the 15 studies identified had uncertainties due to risk of bias in confounding, outcome, and exposure ascertainment, likely contributing to the observed inconsistencies within and across studies, and resulting in lack of candidacy for dose-response assessment. Nonetheless, 2 representative studies were selected to demonstrate possible methods to quantify uncertainty in the remaining steps. Data simulations indicated lack of a clear dose-response relationship; dose-response models fit to representative simulations indicated high uncertainty in both the magnitude and direction of effect with simulated benchmark dose and its lower limit values varying at least 66- and 86-fold for PFOA and PFOS. Uncertainty factor application added minimal uncertainty. Combined, a high level of uncertainty was observed, precluding the ability to confidently assess causal dose-response relationships with the observational data, alone. This case study highlights the need for quantitative uncertainty analysis when developing toxicity values with observational data and, importantly, emphasizes the need for application of additional techniques to directly assess causality and the specificity of dose-response when relying on studies of association in quantitative risk assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"96-115\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae152\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Application of a quantitative uncertainty assessment to develop ranges of plausible toxicity values when using observational data in risk assessment: a case study examining associations between PFOA and PFOS exposures and vaccine response.
Traditional approaches for quantitatively characterizing uncertainty in risk assessment require adaptation to accommodate increased reliance on observational (vs experimental) studies in developing toxicity values. Herein, a case study with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS and vaccine response explores approaches for qualitative and-where possible-quantitative assessments of uncertainty at each step in the toxicity value development process when using observational data, including review and appraisal of individual studies, candidate study selection, dose-response modeling, and application of uncertainty factors. Each of the 15 studies identified had uncertainties due to risk of bias in confounding, outcome, and exposure ascertainment, likely contributing to the observed inconsistencies within and across studies, and resulting in lack of candidacy for dose-response assessment. Nonetheless, 2 representative studies were selected to demonstrate possible methods to quantify uncertainty in the remaining steps. Data simulations indicated lack of a clear dose-response relationship; dose-response models fit to representative simulations indicated high uncertainty in both the magnitude and direction of effect with simulated benchmark dose and its lower limit values varying at least 66- and 86-fold for PFOA and PFOS. Uncertainty factor application added minimal uncertainty. Combined, a high level of uncertainty was observed, precluding the ability to confidently assess causal dose-response relationships with the observational data, alone. This case study highlights the need for quantitative uncertainty analysis when developing toxicity values with observational data and, importantly, emphasizes the need for application of additional techniques to directly assess causality and the specificity of dose-response when relying on studies of association in quantitative risk assessment.
期刊介绍:
The mission of Toxicological Sciences, the official journal of the Society of Toxicology, is to publish a broad spectrum of impactful research in the field of toxicology.
The primary focus of Toxicological Sciences is on original research articles. The journal also provides expert insight via contemporary and systematic reviews, as well as forum articles and editorial content that addresses important topics in the field.
The scope of Toxicological Sciences is focused on a broad spectrum of impactful toxicological research that will advance the multidisciplinary field of toxicology ranging from basic research to model development and application, and decision making. Submissions will include diverse technologies and approaches including, but not limited to: bioinformatics and computational biology, biochemistry, exposure science, histopathology, mass spectrometry, molecular biology, population-based sciences, tissue and cell-based systems, and whole-animal studies. Integrative approaches that combine realistic exposure scenarios with impactful analyses that move the field forward are encouraged.