ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2022
Clearly weighing the evidence in read-across can improve assessments of data-poor chemicals.
Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a Novel Read-Across Concept for Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment of Phosphate Chemicals: A Case Study.Toxics · 2024Article
- Advancing the science of a read-across framework for evaluation of data-poor chemicals incorporating systematic and new approach methods.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper provides a systematic weight-of-evidence method for read-across analyses of data-poor chemicals. The read-across technique extrapolates toxicity from analogous chemicals for which suitable test data are available to a target chemical. To determine that a candidate analogue is the 'best' and is sufficiently similar, the evidence for similarity of each candidate analogue to the target is weighed. We present a systematic weight of evidence method that provides transparency and imposes a consistent and rigorous inferential process. The method assembles relevant information concerning structure, physicochemical attributes, toxicokinetics, and toxicodynamics of the target and analogues. The information is then organized by evidence types and subtypes and weighted in terms of properties: relevance, strength, and reliability into weight levels, expressed as symbols. After evidence types are weighted, the bodies of evidence are weighted for collective properties: number, diversity, and coherence. Finally, the weights for the types and bodies of evidence are weighed for each analogue, and, if the overall weight of evidence is sufficient for one or more analogues, the analogue with the greatest weight is used to estimate the endpoint effect. We illustrate this WoE approach with a read-across analysis for screening the organochlorine contaminant, p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), for noncancer oral toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.