Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28543973›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2017

Advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework-An international horizon scanning approach.

Carlie A LaLone, Gerald T Ankley, Scott E Belanger, Michelle R Embry, Geoff Hodges, Dries Knapen, Sharon Munn, Edward J Perkins, Murray A Rudd, Daniel L Villeneuve and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Adverse Outcome Pathways Mechanistically Describing Hepatotoxicity.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Cross-species applicability of an adverse outcome pathway network for thyroid hormone system disruption.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023
    Review
  7. Chemical Safety and the Exposome.Emerging contaminants · 2023
    Article
  8. Overview of Adverse Outcome Pathways and Current Applications on Nanomaterials.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Review
  9. The human exposome and health in the Anthropocene.International journal of epidemiology · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ecotoxico-lipidomics: An emerging concept to understand chemical-metabolic relationships in comparative fish models.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part D, Genomics & proteomics · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Carlie A LaLoneOffice of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Gerald T AnkleyEnvironmental Safety and Sustainability, Global Product Stewardship, Mason Business Center, The Procter and Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio, USA.
Scott E BelangerEnvironmental Safety and Sustainability, Global Product Stewardship, Mason Business Center, The Procter and Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio, USA.
Michelle R EmbryILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Geoff HodgesSafety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom.
Dries KnapenZebrafishlab, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Sharon MunnJoint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Edward J PerkinsUS Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
Murray A RuddDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory College, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Daniel L VilleneuveOffice of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Maurice WhelanJoint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Catherine WillettThe Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC, USA.
Xiaowei ZhangState Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Markus HeckerToxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatoon, Canada.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our ability to conduct whole-organism toxicity tests to understand chemical safety has been outpaced by the synthesis of new chemicals for a wide variety of commercial applications. As a result, scientists and risk assessors are turning to mechanistically based studies to increase efficiencies in chemical risk assessment and making greater use of in vitro and in silico methods to evaluate potential environmental and human health hazards. In this context, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework has gained traction in regulatory science because it offers an efficient and effective means for capturing available knowledge describing the linkage between mechanistic data and the apical toxicity end points required for regulatory assessments. A number of international activities have focused on AOP development and various applications to regulatory decision-making. These initiatives have prompted dialogue between research scientists and regulatory communities to consider how best to use the AOP framework. Although expert-facilitated discussions and AOP development have been critical in moving the science of AOPs forward, it was recognized that a survey of the broader scientific and regulatory communities would aid in identifying current limitations while guiding future initiatives for the AOP framework. To that end, a global horizon scanning exercise was conducted to solicit questions concerning the challenges or limitations that must be addressed to realize the full potential of the AOP framework in research and regulatory decision-making. The questions received fell into several broad topical areas: AOP networks, quantitative AOPs, collaboration on and communication of AOP knowledge, AOP discovery and development, chemical and cross-species extrapolation, exposure/toxicokinetics considerations, and AOP applications. Expert ranking was then used to prioritize questions for each category, where 4 broad themes emerged that could help inform and guide future AOP research and regulatory initiatives. In addition, frequently asked questions were identified and addressed by experts in the field. Answers to frequently asked questions will aid in addressing common misperceptions and will allow for clarification of AOP topics. The need for this type of clarification was highlighted with surprising frequency by our question submitters, indicating that improvements are needed in communicating the AOP framework among the scientific and regulatory communities. Overall, horizon scanning engaged the global scientific community to help identify key questions surrounding the AOP framework and guide the direction of future initiatives. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1411-1421. © 2017 SETAC.

Indexed as

AnimalsAquatic OrganismsGovernment RegulationHazardous SubstancesHumansModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesHazardous SubstancesAdverse outcome pathwayCommunication and outreachGlobal surveyNetworkQuantitativeRegulatory application

Identifiers

PMID28543973
PMCPMC6156781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.