Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34534351›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2021

A Pragmatic Approach to Adverse Outcome Pathway Development and Evaluation.

Terje Svingen, Daniel L Villeneuve, Dries Knapen, Eleftheria Maria Panagiotou, Monica Kam Draskau, Pauliina Damdimopoulou, Jason M O'Brien

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

7 authors.

Terje SvingenDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby DK 2800, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4650-7651
Daniel L VilleneuveGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota 55804, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-0203
Dries KnapenZebrafishlab, Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk 2610, Belgium.
Eleftheria Maria PanagiotouDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm 14186, Sweden.
Monica Kam DraskauDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby DK 2800, Denmark.
Pauliina DamdimopoulouDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm 14186, Sweden.
Jason M O'BrienEcotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework provides a practical means for organizing scientific knowledge that can be used to infer cause-effect relationships between stressor events and toxicity outcomes in intact organisms. It has reached wide acceptance as a tool to aid chemical safety assessment and regulatory toxicology by supporting a systematic way of predicting adverse health outcomes based on accumulated mechanistic knowledge. A major challenge for broader application of the AOP concept in regulatory toxicology, however, has been developing robust AOPs to a level where they are peer reviewed and accepted. This is because the amount of work required to substantiate the modular units of a complete AOP is considerable, to the point where it can take years from start to finish. To help alleviate this bottleneck, we propose a more pragmatic approach to AOP development whereby the focus becomes on smaller blocks. First, we argue that the key event relationship (KER) should be formally recognized as the core building block of knowledge assembly within the AOP knowledge base (AOP-KB), albeit framing them within full AOPs to ensure regulatory utility. Second, we argue that KERs should be developed using systematic review approaches, but only in cases where the underlying concept does not build on what is considered canonical knowledge. In cases where knowledge is considered canonical, rigorous systematic review approaches should not be required. It is our hope that these approaches will contribute to increasing the pace at which the AOP-KB is populated with AOPs with utility for chemical safety assessors and regulators.

Indexed as

Adverse Outcome PathwaysHumansRisk AssessmentAOP-KBAOP-wikichemical regulationrisk assessmenttoxicology

Identifiers

PMID34534351
PMCPMC8633887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.