以PFAS为例,利用OECD评估框架对PBK模型进行评估

IF 2.9 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Deepika Deepika , Kanchan Bharti , Shubh Sharma , Saurav Kumar , Trine Husøy , Marcin W. Wojewodzic , Klára Komprdová , Aude Ratier , Joost Westerhout , Thomas Gastellu , Meg-Anne Moriceau , Sanah Majid , Renske Hoondert , Johannes Kruisselbrink , Jasper Engel , Annelies Noorlander , Carolina Vogs , Vikas Kumar
{"title":"以PFAS为例,利用OECD评估框架对PBK模型进行评估","authors":"Deepika Deepika ,&nbsp;Kanchan Bharti ,&nbsp;Shubh Sharma ,&nbsp;Saurav Kumar ,&nbsp;Trine Husøy ,&nbsp;Marcin W. Wojewodzic ,&nbsp;Klára Komprdová ,&nbsp;Aude Ratier ,&nbsp;Joost Westerhout ,&nbsp;Thomas Gastellu ,&nbsp;Meg-Anne Moriceau ,&nbsp;Sanah Majid ,&nbsp;Renske Hoondert ,&nbsp;Johannes Kruisselbrink ,&nbsp;Jasper Engel ,&nbsp;Annelies Noorlander ,&nbsp;Carolina Vogs ,&nbsp;Vikas Kumar","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2025.100381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models are becoming increasingly important in chemical risk assessment, helping in linking external and internal exposure concentrations, thereby supporting the development of regulatory health-based limits for chemicals with exposure from environmental, occupational, and consumer sources. To increase confidence in PBK models for regulatory purposes, the OECD published a guidance document in 2021 outlining the characterization, validation and reporting of PBK models. However, its use remains limited in chemical toxicology as reflected by the few publications that have applied it during model development. The aim of this study was to evaluate several published PBK models for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) as proof of concept to assess their validity and credibility for regulatory purposes, based on the OECD guidance. Out of 28 published PFASs human PBK models considered, 11 were selected for evaluation. The assessment used the OECD guidance document, encompassing two main areas: i) documentation (context/implementation, documentation, software implementation, verification, and peer engagement) and ii) assessment of model validity (biological basis, theoretical basis of model equations, input parameter’s reliability, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, goodness-of-fit and predictivity). To standardize this process, an online evaluation system based on the OECD guidance was developed and used for this model evaluation exercise. The collected data were analysed to assess the overall quality of published models and identify limitations in the current PFAS model landscape. Our analysis revealed opportunities for improvement in the biological representation within current PFAS models, particularly regarding the inclusion of diverse population groups. Currently, PFAS models primarily focus on only four compounds, highlighting an opportunity to extend coverage to other PFASs using read-across approaches for data-poor chemicals. Furthermore, our findings show that a harmonized approach for PBK model reporting is needed. To facilitate broader adoption of the OECD guidance, we developed and hosted an R Shiny template on our group’s web server (<span><span>https://app.shiny.insilicohub.org/Evaluation_PBPK/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>). This template can act as valuable tool for researchers evaluating PBK models according to the OECD guidance.</div><div>GitHub: PBPK-OECD-EVALUATION.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":"36 ","pages":"Article 100381"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of PBK models using the OECD assessment framework taking PFAS as case study\",\"authors\":\"Deepika Deepika ,&nbsp;Kanchan Bharti ,&nbsp;Shubh Sharma ,&nbsp;Saurav Kumar ,&nbsp;Trine Husøy ,&nbsp;Marcin W. Wojewodzic ,&nbsp;Klára Komprdová ,&nbsp;Aude Ratier ,&nbsp;Joost Westerhout ,&nbsp;Thomas Gastellu ,&nbsp;Meg-Anne Moriceau ,&nbsp;Sanah Majid ,&nbsp;Renske Hoondert ,&nbsp;Johannes Kruisselbrink ,&nbsp;Jasper Engel ,&nbsp;Annelies Noorlander ,&nbsp;Carolina Vogs ,&nbsp;Vikas Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comtox.2025.100381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models are becoming increasingly important in chemical risk assessment, helping in linking external and internal exposure concentrations, thereby supporting the development of regulatory health-based limits for chemicals with exposure from environmental, occupational, and consumer sources. To increase confidence in PBK models for regulatory purposes, the OECD published a guidance document in 2021 outlining the characterization, validation and reporting of PBK models. However, its use remains limited in chemical toxicology as reflected by the few publications that have applied it during model development. The aim of this study was to evaluate several published PBK models for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) as proof of concept to assess their validity and credibility for regulatory purposes, based on the OECD guidance. Out of 28 published PFASs human PBK models considered, 11 were selected for evaluation. The assessment used the OECD guidance document, encompassing two main areas: i) documentation (context/implementation, documentation, software implementation, verification, and peer engagement) and ii) assessment of model validity (biological basis, theoretical basis of model equations, input parameter’s reliability, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, goodness-of-fit and predictivity). To standardize this process, an online evaluation system based on the OECD guidance was developed and used for this model evaluation exercise. The collected data were analysed to assess the overall quality of published models and identify limitations in the current PFAS model landscape. Our analysis revealed opportunities for improvement in the biological representation within current PFAS models, particularly regarding the inclusion of diverse population groups. Currently, PFAS models primarily focus on only four compounds, highlighting an opportunity to extend coverage to other PFASs using read-across approaches for data-poor chemicals. Furthermore, our findings show that a harmonized approach for PBK model reporting is needed. To facilitate broader adoption of the OECD guidance, we developed and hosted an R Shiny template on our group’s web server (<span><span>https://app.shiny.insilicohub.org/Evaluation_PBPK/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>). This template can act as valuable tool for researchers evaluating PBK models according to the OECD guidance.</div><div>GitHub: PBPK-OECD-EVALUATION.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"36 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111325000416\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111325000416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于生理的动力学(PBK)模型在化学品风险评估中变得越来越重要,有助于将外部和内部接触浓度联系起来,从而支持为环境、职业和消费者来源接触的化学品制定基于健康的管制限制。为了提高对PBK模型监管目的的信心,经合组织于2021年发布了一份指导文件,概述了PBK模型的表征、验证和报告。然而,它在化学毒理学中的使用仍然有限,这反映在模型开发期间应用它的少数出版物中。本研究的目的是根据经合组织的指导意见,评估几种已发表的全氟和多氟烷基物质(PFASs) PBK模型,作为概念证明,以评估其监管目的的有效性和可信度。在考虑的28个已发表的PFASs人类PBK模型中,选择了11个进行评估。评估使用了经合组织的指导文件,包括两个主要领域:i)文档(背景/实施、文档、软件实施、验证和同行参与)和ii)模型有效性评估(生物学基础、模型方程的理论基础、输入参数的可靠性、不确定性和敏感性分析、拟合优度和预测性)。为了使这一过程标准化,开发了一个基于经合组织指南的在线评估系统,并将其用于该模型评估工作。对收集到的数据进行分析,以评估已发表模型的整体质量,并确定当前PFAS模型景观的局限性。我们的分析揭示了目前PFAS模型中生物表征的改进机会,特别是在包含不同人群群体方面。目前,PFAS模型主要只关注四种化合物,这突出了使用跨读方法对数据贫乏的化学品扩展覆盖到其他PFAS的机会。此外,我们的研究结果表明,需要一种统一的PBK模型报告方法。为了促进更广泛地采用经合组织的指导方针,我们在我们集团的网络服务器(https://app.shiny.insilicohub.org/Evaluation_PBPK/)上开发并托管了一个R Shiny模板。该模板可以作为研究人员根据经合组织指南评估PBK模型的有价值的工具。GitHub: PBPK-OECD-EVALUATION。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of PBK models using the OECD assessment framework taking PFAS as case study
Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models are becoming increasingly important in chemical risk assessment, helping in linking external and internal exposure concentrations, thereby supporting the development of regulatory health-based limits for chemicals with exposure from environmental, occupational, and consumer sources. To increase confidence in PBK models for regulatory purposes, the OECD published a guidance document in 2021 outlining the characterization, validation and reporting of PBK models. However, its use remains limited in chemical toxicology as reflected by the few publications that have applied it during model development. The aim of this study was to evaluate several published PBK models for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) as proof of concept to assess their validity and credibility for regulatory purposes, based on the OECD guidance. Out of 28 published PFASs human PBK models considered, 11 were selected for evaluation. The assessment used the OECD guidance document, encompassing two main areas: i) documentation (context/implementation, documentation, software implementation, verification, and peer engagement) and ii) assessment of model validity (biological basis, theoretical basis of model equations, input parameter’s reliability, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, goodness-of-fit and predictivity). To standardize this process, an online evaluation system based on the OECD guidance was developed and used for this model evaluation exercise. The collected data were analysed to assess the overall quality of published models and identify limitations in the current PFAS model landscape. Our analysis revealed opportunities for improvement in the biological representation within current PFAS models, particularly regarding the inclusion of diverse population groups. Currently, PFAS models primarily focus on only four compounds, highlighting an opportunity to extend coverage to other PFASs using read-across approaches for data-poor chemicals. Furthermore, our findings show that a harmonized approach for PBK model reporting is needed. To facilitate broader adoption of the OECD guidance, we developed and hosted an R Shiny template on our group’s web server (https://app.shiny.insilicohub.org/Evaluation_PBPK/). This template can act as valuable tool for researchers evaluating PBK models according to the OECD guidance.
GitHub: PBPK-OECD-EVALUATION.
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
Computational Toxicology
Computational Toxicology Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Computational Toxicology is an international journal publishing computational approaches that assist in the toxicological evaluation of new and existing chemical substances assisting in their safety assessment. -All effects relating to human health and environmental toxicity and fate -Prediction of toxicity, metabolism, fate and physico-chemical properties -The development of models from read-across, (Q)SARs, PBPK, QIVIVE, Multi-Scale Models -Big Data in toxicology: integration, management, analysis -Implementation of models through AOPs, IATA, TTC -Regulatory acceptance of models: evaluation, verification and validation -From metals, to small organic molecules to nanoparticles -Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, foods, cosmetics, fine chemicals -Bringing together the views of industry, regulators, academia, NGOs
×
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