Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33539251›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation biology2021

Bringing together scientific disciplines for collaborative undertakings: a vision for advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework.

Vinita Chauhan, Ruth C Wilkins, Danielle Beaton, Magdalini Sachana, Nathalie Delrue, Carole Yauk, Jason O'Brien, Francesco Marchetti, Sabina Halappanavar, Michael Boyd and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Areas of research to support the system of radiological protection.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021
    Review
  6. 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

25 authors.

Vinita ChauhanConsumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4498-0915
Ruth C WilkinsConsumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9621-477X
Danielle BeatonCanadian Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-5139
Magdalini SachanaEnvironment Health and Safety Division, Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
Nathalie DelrueEnvironment Health and Safety Division, Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
Carole YaukDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jason O'BrienEcotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Francesco MarchettiHealthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9435-4867
Sabina HalappanavarHealthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Michael BoydU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4633-2938
Daniel VilleneuveU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN, USA.
Tara S Barton-MaclarenHealthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Bette MeekMcLaughlin Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Catalina AnghelCanadian Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Canada.
Crina HeghesLhasa Limited, Leeds, UK.
Chris BarberLhasa Limited, Leeds, UK.
Edward PerkinsUS Army Engineer Research and Development Center Jackson, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Julie LeblancDirectorate of Environment and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, Canada.
Julie BurttDirectorate of Environment and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0795-7142
Holly LaaksoCanadian Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Canada.
Dominique LaurierHealth and Environment Division, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1432-4738
Ted LazoRadiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety Division, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France.
Maurice WhelanEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Russell ThomasU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Donald CoolElectric Power Research Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4105-0242

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecades of research to understand the impacts of various types of environmental occupational and medical stressors on human health have produced a vast amount of data across many scientific disciplines. Organizing these data in a meaningful way to support risk assessment has been a significant challenge. To address this and other challenges in modernizing chemical health risk assessment, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) formalized the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, an approach to consolidate knowledge into measurable key events (KEs) at various levels of biological organisation causally linked to disease based on the weight of scientific evidence (http://oe.cd/aops). Currently, AOPs have been considered predominantly in chemical safety but are relevant to radiation. In this context, the Nuclear Energy Agency's (NEA's) High-Level Group on Low Dose Research (HLG-LDR) is working to improve research co-ordination, including radiological research with chemical research, identify synergies between the fields and to avoid duplication of efforts and resource investments. To this end, a virtual workshop was held on 7 and 8 October 2020 with experts from the OECD AOP Programme together with the radiation and chemical research/regulation communities. The workshop was a coordinated effort of Health Canada, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The AOP approach was discussed including key issues to fully embrace its value and catalyze implementation in areas of radiation risk assessment.

conclusionsA joint chemical and radiological expert group was proposed as a means to encourage cooperation between risk assessors and an initial vision was discussed on a path forward. A global survey was suggested as a way to identify priority health outcomes of regulatory interest for AOP development. Multidisciplinary teams are needed to address the challenge of producing the appropriate data for risk assessments. Data management and machine learning tools were highlighted as a way to progress from weight of evidence to computational causal inference.

Indexed as

Adverse Outcome PathwaysHumansRisk Assessmentadverse outcomeAdverse outcome pathway frameworkkey eventslow doseradiation risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID33539251
PMCPMC10711570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.