Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31338483›Full record

ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018

Utilizing Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) with High Throughput Exposure Predictions (HTE) as a Risk-Based Prioritization Approach for thousands of chemicals.

Grace Patlewicz, John F Wambaugh, Susan P Felter, Ted W Simon, Richard A Becker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Integrative Assessment ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Developing an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC).Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022
    Article
  10. Exposure forecasting - ExpoCast - for data-poor chemicals in commerce and the environment.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Grace PatlewiczNational Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
John F WambaughNational Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Susan P FelterProcter & Gamble, Central Product Safety, Mason, OH 45040, USA.
Ted W SimonTed Simon LLC, Winston GA 30187, USA.
Richard A BeckerAmerican Chemistry Council, 700 2 St. NE, Washington, DC 20002.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory agencies across the world are facing the challenge of performing risk-based prioritization of thousands of chemicals in commerce. Here, we present an approach using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) combined with heuristic high-throughput exposure (HTE) modelling to rank order chemicals for further evaluation. Accordingly, for risk-based prioritization, chemicals with exposures > TTC would be ranked as higher priority for further evaluation whereas substances with exposures < TTC would be ranked as lower priority. An initial proof of concept, using a dataset of 7986 substances with previously modeled median and upper 95% credible interval (UCI) total daily median exposure rates showed fewer than 5% of substances had UCI exposures > the Cramer Class III TTC (1.5 μg/kg-day). We extended the analysis by profiling the same dataset through the TTC workflow published by Kroes et al (2004) which accounts for known exclusions to the TTC as well as structural alerts. UCI exposures were then compared to the appropriate class-specific TTC. None of the substances categorized as Cramer Class I or Cramer Class II exceeded their respective TTC values and no more than 2% of substances categorized as Cramer Class III or acetylcholinesterase inhibitors exceeded their respective TTC values. The modeled UCI exposures for the majority of the 1853 chemicals with genotoxicity structural alerts did exceed the TTC of 0.0025 μg/kg-day, but only 79 substances exceeded this TTC if median exposure values were used. For substances for which UCI exposures exceeded relevant TTC values, we highlight possible approaches for consideration to refine the HTE : TTC approach. Overall, coupling TTC with HTE offers promise as a pragmatic first step in ranking substances as part of a risk-based prioritization approach.

Indexed as

high throughput exposure (HTE)risk-based prioritizationThreshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)

Identifiers

PMID31338483
PMCPMC6650166

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.