{"title":"用荟萃分析估计亚慢性到慢性外推的基准剂量比分布。","authors":"Todd Blessinger, John Fox, Jeffry Dean","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfaf119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recently, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) developed a unified probabilistic framework for deriving reference values, and a software tool, Approximate Probabilistic Analysis (APROBA), to help implement this framework. The distributions of multiple sources of uncertainty and variability were estimated, including uncertainty when extrapolating from subchronic to chronic data. The subchronic-to-chronic distribution was estimated using ratios between subchronic and chronic benchmark doses (BMD) and was determined to be approximately lognormal, with parameter values reported by IPCS. These parameters were estimated largely from historical data on body and organ weights from toxicological studies. We estimated the distribution using a larger collection of data, including histopathological and clinical endpoints. Our analysis determined that key assumptions of the method and the default values in APROBA are consistent with the results from the new data. However, the uncertainty of predictions for dichotomous response data was greater than assumed in APROBA, and the reference values derived using our new results were lower than those derived from APROBA (by 25% in an example case). Also, APROBA's default parameter values do not account fully for the uncertainty of predicted chronic BMDs. Most importantly, uncertainty of the prediction can be much greater than assumed in APROBA if BMDs are accepted when they fall well outside the observed dose range or when an upper confidence limit is not quantifiable. Careful evaluation of dose-response model fit, including a number of indicators of model suitability in addition to standard goodness-of-fit statistics, is necessary to improve quantification of uncertainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimation of Benchmark Dose Ratio Distributions for Subchronic-to-Chronic Extrapolation Using Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Todd Blessinger, John Fox, Jeffry Dean\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/toxsci/kfaf119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recently, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) developed a unified probabilistic framework for deriving reference values, and a software tool, Approximate Probabilistic Analysis (APROBA), to help implement this framework. The distributions of multiple sources of uncertainty and variability were estimated, including uncertainty when extrapolating from subchronic to chronic data. The subchronic-to-chronic distribution was estimated using ratios between subchronic and chronic benchmark doses (BMD) and was determined to be approximately lognormal, with parameter values reported by IPCS. These parameters were estimated largely from historical data on body and organ weights from toxicological studies. We estimated the distribution using a larger collection of data, including histopathological and clinical endpoints. Our analysis determined that key assumptions of the method and the default values in APROBA are consistent with the results from the new data. However, the uncertainty of predictions for dichotomous response data was greater than assumed in APROBA, and the reference values derived using our new results were lower than those derived from APROBA (by 25% in an example case). Also, APROBA's default parameter values do not account fully for the uncertainty of predicted chronic BMDs. Most importantly, uncertainty of the prediction can be much greater than assumed in APROBA if BMDs are accepted when they fall well outside the observed dose range or when an upper confidence limit is not quantifiable. Careful evaluation of dose-response model fit, including a number of indicators of model suitability in addition to standard goodness-of-fit statistics, is necessary to improve quantification of uncertainty.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"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/kfaf119\",\"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/kfaf119","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Estimation of Benchmark Dose Ratio Distributions for Subchronic-to-Chronic Extrapolation Using Meta-Analysis.
Recently, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) developed a unified probabilistic framework for deriving reference values, and a software tool, Approximate Probabilistic Analysis (APROBA), to help implement this framework. The distributions of multiple sources of uncertainty and variability were estimated, including uncertainty when extrapolating from subchronic to chronic data. The subchronic-to-chronic distribution was estimated using ratios between subchronic and chronic benchmark doses (BMD) and was determined to be approximately lognormal, with parameter values reported by IPCS. These parameters were estimated largely from historical data on body and organ weights from toxicological studies. We estimated the distribution using a larger collection of data, including histopathological and clinical endpoints. Our analysis determined that key assumptions of the method and the default values in APROBA are consistent with the results from the new data. However, the uncertainty of predictions for dichotomous response data was greater than assumed in APROBA, and the reference values derived using our new results were lower than those derived from APROBA (by 25% in an example case). Also, APROBA's default parameter values do not account fully for the uncertainty of predicted chronic BMDs. Most importantly, uncertainty of the prediction can be much greater than assumed in APROBA if BMDs are accepted when they fall well outside the observed dose range or when an upper confidence limit is not quantifiable. Careful evaluation of dose-response model fit, including a number of indicators of model suitability in addition to standard goodness-of-fit statistics, is necessary to improve quantification of uncertainty.
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.