Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35460101›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2023

A value of information framework for assessing the trade-offs associated with uncertainty, duration, and cost of chemical toxicity testing.

Shintaro Hagiwara, Greg M Paoli, Paul S Price, Maureen R Gwinn, Annette Guiseppi-Elie, Patrick J Farrell, Bryan J Hubbell, Daniel Krewski, Russell S Thomas

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2023. 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
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025
    Review
  3. Adverse effects in traditional and alternative toxicity tests.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Shintaro HagiwaraRisk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4677-7264
Greg M PaoliRisk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada.
Paul S PriceCenter for Compuational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2098-8274
Maureen R GwinnOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Annette Guiseppi-ElieCenter for Compuational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Patrick J FarrellSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Bryan J HubbellAir, Climate, and Energy Research Program, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Daniel KrewskiRisk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0533-5734
Russell S ThomasCenter for Compuational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USRisk Engineering (Bulgaria) · BGCarleton University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of investigators have explored the use of value of information (VOI) analysis to evaluate alternative information collection procedures in diverse decision-making contexts. This paper presents an analytic framework for determining the value of toxicity information used in risk-based decision making. The framework is specifically designed to explore the trade-offs between cost, timeliness, and uncertainty reduction associated with different toxicity-testing methodologies. The use of the proposed framework is demonstrated by two illustrative applications which, although based on simplified assumptions, show the insights that can be obtained through the use of VOI analysis. Specifically, these results suggest that timeliness of information collection has a significant impact on estimates of the VOI of chemical toxicity tests, even in the presence of smaller reductions in uncertainty. The framework introduces the concept of the expected value of delayed sample information, as an extension to the usual expected value of sample information, to accommodate the reductions in value resulting from delayed decision making. Our analysis also suggests that lower cost and higher throughput testing also may be beneficial in terms of public health benefits by increasing the number of substances that can be evaluated within a given budget. When the relative value is expressed in terms of return-on-investment per testing strategy, the differences can be substantial.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisUncertaintycost of delayreturn on investmentrisk decision makingsocial costtoxicity testingvalue of information

Identifiers

PMID35460101
PMCPMC10515440
OpenAlexW4224286517

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.