Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35187686›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2022

Distributions for time, interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation for deriving occupational exposure limits.

Marco Dilger, Klaus Schneider, Claudia Drossard, Heidi Ott, Eva Kaiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Marco DilgerForschungs- und Beratungsinstitut Gefahrstoffe GmbH (FoBiG), Freiburg, Germany.
Klaus SchneiderForschungs- und Beratungsinstitut Gefahrstoffe GmbH (FoBiG), Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7752-7578
Claudia DrossardFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dortmund, Germany.
Heidi OttFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dortmund, Germany.
Eva KaiserForschungs- und Beratungsinstitut Gefahrstoffe GmbH (FoBiG), Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, BAuA F2437European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work aimed at improving the empirical database of time (i.e., exposure duration), interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation when deriving occupational exposure limits (OELs). For each extrapolation step, a distribution was derived, which can be used to model the associated uncertainties. For time and interspecies extrapolation, distributions of ratios of dose descriptors were derived from studies of different length or species. National Toxicology Program (NTP) study data were manually assessed, and data from REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) registration dossiers were evaluated semi-automatically. Intraspecies extrapolation was investigated by compiling published studies on human toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic variability. A new database was established for toxicokinetic differences in interindividual susceptibility, including many inhalation studies. Using NTP data produced more reliable results than using REACH data. The geometric mean (GM) for time extrapolation subacute/chronic agreed with previous evaluations (GM = 4.11), whereas the GM for subchronic/chronic extrapolation was slightly higher (GM = 2.93) than the GMs found by others. No significant differences were observed between systemically and locally acting substances. Observed interspecies differences confirmed the suitability of allometric scaling, with the derived distribution describing remaining uncertainty. Distributions of intraspecies variability at the 1% and 5% incidence level had medians of 7.25 and 3.56, respectively. When compared with assessment factors (AFs) currently used in the EU, probabilities that these AFs are protective enough span a wide range from 10% to 95%, depending on the extrapolation step. These results help to select AFs in a transparent and informed way and, by allowing to compare protection levels achieved, to harmonise methods for deriving OELs.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureAdministration, InhalationDatabases, FactualHumansRisk Assessmentassessment factors (AFs)distributionsinterspecies extrapolationintraspecies extrapolationoccupational exposure limits (OELs)time extrapolationuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35187686
PMCPMC9314728

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.