改进了对不良后果途径和相关新方法进行人类相关性评估的工作流程。

IF 4.6 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Frontiers in toxicology Pub Date : 2025-08-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/ftox.2025.1616817
Annick D van den Brand, Julia J Meerman, Christina H J Veltman, Mirjam Luijten
{"title":"改进了对不良后果途径和相关新方法进行人类相关性评估的工作流程。","authors":"Annick D van den Brand, Julia J Meerman, Christina H J Veltman, Mirjam Luijten","doi":"10.3389/ftox.2025.1616817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In chemical risk assessment the human relevance of adverse health effects observed in experimental animal studies and the underlying toxicological mechanisms, i.e., adverse outcome pathways is often assumed, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Yet, detailed systematic guidance as to how human relevance of perturbed AOPs should be assessed and which data or information should be considered is lacking. Building on previous work we present a refined workflow for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated new approach methodologies The updated workflow structurally defines the required information for assessing the human relevance of the AOP by means of biological and empirical considerations. Furthermore, the modified workflow better guides assessment of the relevance of NAMs. This is of importance for the use of NAM data in human health risk assessment. In addition, we suggest an approach for weight of evidence assessment by integrating the different lines of evidence. The refined workflow is now accompanied by developed guidance and templates as well as an expanded toolbox, i.e., a list of information sources, to further facilitate application of the workflow. Finally, remaining issues and challenges are discussed. This work is a next step towards to the ultimate goal of a harmonized, structured and transparent approach for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated NAMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73111,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in toxicology","volume":"7 ","pages":"1616817"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.\",\"authors\":\"Annick D van den Brand, Julia J Meerman, Christina H J Veltman, Mirjam Luijten\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/ftox.2025.1616817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In chemical risk assessment the human relevance of adverse health effects observed in experimental animal studies and the underlying toxicological mechanisms, i.e., adverse outcome pathways is often assumed, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Yet, detailed systematic guidance as to how human relevance of perturbed AOPs should be assessed and which data or information should be considered is lacking. Building on previous work we present a refined workflow for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated new approach methodologies The updated workflow structurally defines the required information for assessing the human relevance of the AOP by means of biological and empirical considerations. Furthermore, the modified workflow better guides assessment of the relevance of NAMs. This is of importance for the use of NAM data in human health risk assessment. In addition, we suggest an approach for weight of evidence assessment by integrating the different lines of evidence. The refined workflow is now accompanied by developed guidance and templates as well as an expanded toolbox, i.e., a list of information sources, to further facilitate application of the workflow. Finally, remaining issues and challenges are discussed. This work is a next step towards to the ultimate goal of a harmonized, structured and transparent approach for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated NAMs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"1616817\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392633/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2025.1616817\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2025.1616817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在化学品风险评估中,通常假定在动物实验研究中观察到的有害健康影响与人类的关系以及潜在的毒理学机制,即不良后果途径,除非有证据表明情况并非如此。然而,关于如何评估受干扰的aop与人类的相关性以及应考虑哪些数据或信息,缺乏详细的系统指导。在先前工作的基础上,我们提出了一个用于AOP的人类相关性评估的改进工作流和相关的新方法方法。更新的工作流从结构上定义了通过生物学和经验考虑来评估AOP的人类相关性所需的信息。此外,修改后的工作流程更好地指导了名称相关性的评估。这对于在人类健康风险评估中使用不结盟运动数据具有重要意义。此外,我们提出了一种通过整合不同证据线来评估证据权重的方法。精炼的工作流现在伴随着开发的指南和模板以及扩展的工具箱,即信息源列表,以进一步促进工作流的应用。最后,讨论了存在的问题和面临的挑战。这项工作是朝着统一、结构化和透明的方法来评估aop和相关NAMs的人类相关性这一最终目标迈出的下一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.

Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.

Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.

Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.

In chemical risk assessment the human relevance of adverse health effects observed in experimental animal studies and the underlying toxicological mechanisms, i.e., adverse outcome pathways is often assumed, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Yet, detailed systematic guidance as to how human relevance of perturbed AOPs should be assessed and which data or information should be considered is lacking. Building on previous work we present a refined workflow for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated new approach methodologies The updated workflow structurally defines the required information for assessing the human relevance of the AOP by means of biological and empirical considerations. Furthermore, the modified workflow better guides assessment of the relevance of NAMs. This is of importance for the use of NAM data in human health risk assessment. In addition, we suggest an approach for weight of evidence assessment by integrating the different lines of evidence. The refined workflow is now accompanied by developed guidance and templates as well as an expanded toolbox, i.e., a list of information sources, to further facilitate application of the workflow. Finally, remaining issues and challenges are discussed. This work is a next step towards to the ultimate goal of a harmonized, structured and transparent approach for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated NAMs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信