Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718074›Full record

ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2021

Opportunities and challenges related to saturation of toxicokinetic processes: Implications for risk assessment.

Yu-Mei Tan, Hugh A Barton, Alan Boobis, Rachel Brunner, Harvey Clewell, Rhian Cope, Jeffrey Dawson, Jeanne Domoradzki, Peter Egeghy, Pankaj Gulati and 17 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Transformative Vision for an Omics-Based Regulatory Chemical Testing Paradigm.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

27 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

Yu-Mei TanU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Durham, NC, USA.
Hugh A BartonIndependent Consultant, Mystic, CT, USA.
Alan BoobisImperial College London, London, UK.
Rachel BrunnerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Durham, NC, USA.
Harvey ClewellRamboll US Consulting, Inc., Monroe, LA, USA.
Rhian CopeAustralian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jeffrey DawsonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeanne DomoradzkiCorteva Agriscience, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Peter EgeghyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development, Durham, NC, USA.
Pankaj GulatiAustralian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Brandall IngleU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Durham, NC, USA.
Nicole KleinstreuerNational Toxicology Program, Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Kelly LoweU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Anna LowitU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Elizabeth MendezU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
David MillerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeffrey MinucciU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development, Durham, NC, USA.
James NguyenU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Alicia PainiEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Monique PerronU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Katherine PhillipsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development, Durham, NC, USA.
Hua QianExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Annandale, NJ, USA.
Tharacad RamanarayananSyngenta, Ltd., Greensboro, NC, USA.
Fiona SewellNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research, London, UK.
Philip VillanuevaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
John WambaughU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development, Durham, NC, USA.
Michelle EmbryHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington DC, USA. Electronic address: membry@hesiglobal.org.
Environmental Protection Agency · USAustralian Diabetes Society · AUCorteva (United States) · USExxonMobil (United States) · USHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute · USImperial College London · GBJoint Research Centre · ITMystic Seaport · USNational Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research · GBResearch Triangle Park Foundation · USSyngenta (United States) · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Top dose selection for repeated dose animal studies has generally focused on identification of apical endpoints, use of the limit dose, or determination of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The intent is to optimize the ability of toxicity tests performed in a small number of animals to detect effects for hazard identification. An alternative approach, the kinetically derived maximum dose (KMD), has been proposed as a mechanism to integrate toxicokinetic (TK) data into the dose selection process. The approach refers to the dose above which the systemic exposures depart from being proportional to external doses. This non-linear external-internal dose relationship arises from saturation or limitation of TK process(es), such as absorption or metabolism. The importance of TK information is widely acknowledged when assessing human health risks arising from exposures to environmental chemicals, as TK determines the amount of chemical at potential sites of toxicological responses. However, there have been differing opinions and interpretations within the scientific and regulatory communities related to the validity and application of the KMD concept. A multi-stakeholder working group, led by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), was formed to provide an opportunity for impacted stakeholders to address commonly raised scientific and technical issues related to this topic and, more specifically, a weight of evidence approach is recommended to inform design and dose selection for repeated dose animal studies. Commonly raised challenges related to the use of TK data for dose selection are discussed, recommendations are provided, and illustrative case examples are provided to address these challenges or refute misconceptions.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugToxicokineticsAnimalsCarcinogenicity TestsMaximum Tolerated DoseRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsDose selectionKMDToxicokineticsWeight of evidence

Identifiers

PMID34718074
PMCPMC9229944
OpenAlexW3209369307

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.