Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35034131›Full record

ReviewALTEX2022

Probabilistic risk assessment - the keystone for the future of toxicology.

Alexandra Maertens, Emily Golden, Thomas H Luechtefeld, Sebastian Hoffmann, Katya Tsaioun, Thomas Hartung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ALTEX, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Molecular similarity: Theory, applications, and perspectives.Artificial intelligence chemistry · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alexandra MaertensCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Emily GoldenCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Thomas H LuechtefeldCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sebastian HoffmannCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Katya TsaiounCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Traning Program in Environmental Health SciencesT32ES007141 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Marsha Wills-Karp · 1985 to 2026
$22.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safety sciences must cope with uncertainty of models and results as well as information gaps. Acknowledging this uncer-tainty necessitates embracing probabilities and accepting the remaining risk. Every toxicological tool delivers only probable results. Traditionally, this is taken into account by using uncertainty / assessment factors and worst-case / precautionary approaches and thresholds. Probabilistic methods and Bayesian approaches seek to characterize these uncertainties and promise to support better risk assessment and, thereby, improve risk management decisions. Actual assessments of uncertainty can be more realistic than worst-case scenarios and may allow less conservative safety margins. Most importantly, as soon as we agree on uncertainty, this defines room for improvement and allows a transition from traditional to new approach methods as an engineering exercise. The objective nature of these mathematical tools allows to assign each methodology its fair place in evidence integration, whether in the context of risk assessment, sys-tematic reviews, or in the definition of an integrated testing strategy (ITS) / defined approach (DA) / integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA). This article gives an overview of methods for probabilistic risk assessment and their application for exposure assessment, physiologically-based kinetic modelling, probability of hazard assessment (based on quantitative and read-across based structure-activity relationships, and mechanistic alerts from in vitro studies), indi-vidual susceptibility assessment, and evidence integration. Additional aspects are opportunities for uncertainty analysis of adverse outcome pathways and their relation to thresholds of toxicological concern. In conclusion, probabilistic risk assessment will be key for constructing a new toxicology paradigm - probably!

Indexed as

ToxicologyBayes TheoremRisk AssessmentUncertaintychemicalsdata miningdrugsregulatory toxicologysafety sciencesstatistics

Identifiers

PMID35034131
PMCPMC8906258

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.